Festivus in July: My DCC RPG Stuff Arrived!

Ah, gotta love a delivery of gaming goodness on a Friday, folks!

Yes, that's right, that's a picture of my package right there! My package of DCC RPG goodness, that is! I got my stuff from the incredibly awesome people at Noble Knight Games, where great customer service is alive and well.

I hold the mighty d30 in my hand!

And here is a package of the first ever GameScience Zocchi dice purchase. I got the kind that glow in the dark so they would stick out among my other polyhedrals.

Ah, the tome itself! No more will I struggle with the PDF! It really is a value for the money at $40 (actually, I got it on sale for $35).

The Noble Knights also threw in the 2012 Free RPG Day offering from Goodman Games!

My god, it's full of art! The spine felt nice and tight as I opened it, and the scent of the pages was pleasant enough. I love the smell of gaming in the morning! This is indeed a tome in every sense of the word, though truth be told it isn't as heavy as I expected it to be.

This image was an awesome treat as I skimmed through the monster section. Those are the Troll Lords, the great minds behind Castles & Crusades. Clearly Goodman Games has some love for the rowdy bunch of game designers from the wilds of Arkansas. This warmed my proverbial cockles of my heart, as it was great to see a connection between one of my favorite game systems (C&C) and a new system I am about to explore. That bodes well.

Some close-ups (above and below) of the Zocchi "gems." Again, I wanted them to stand out from the usual dice we're all familiar with from years of running games with D&D's DNA. 

They are indeed funky, folks! They'll have to grow on me, I suppose. They still seem, well, blasphemous to me, but I'm sure I'll get used to them. But they sort of scream "unholy geometry" don't they? Almost something that Lovecraft would describe! ;-)

So, if you'll excuse me, I've got some reading to do!

I can't fight this feeling anymore...

I've spoken out against the Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG on several occasions on this blog. My basis for my objections was my reading of the playtest rules.

As much as I didn't seem to like DCC when I first encountered it, the more I read about it these days (like all the reviews linked on Goodman's DCC page) the more I want to own it.

This might have been a case of "methinks the gamer doth protest too much" all along.

A man is allowed to change his mind.

I still have some issues, but I guess they're trivial when it comes right down to it. For instance:

• The statement "Adventure as 1974 intended you to" is pretty dumb. A year doesn't intend anything for you. It's an abstract concept, not a person. It would have been more accurate to say "Adventure like it's 1974."
• Ok, if DCC is supposed to adhere more closely to D&D's Appendix N roots, then what's with the elves, dwarves, and halflings? Granted, you can ignore these classes in a campaign if you want to run, say, a game set in Hyboria, but still...
• I'm still not thrilled about the Zocchi dice thing. If I ever do play the game, I'll probably be using alternative methods for getting Zocchi results from the familiar polyhedrals I've been using for decades. I guess I'm just an old dog that can't learn new dice tricks.

Once again, these are nitpicks, not major problems. But Mr. Goodman himself still seems very self-congratulatory (like in this interview). I agree to a point with his sentiment that he created the game for himself, but I don't know...he just comes off as very full of himself. But whatever, you can't judge a man in his entirety based off of some words you read on the Internet. So I'm trying to calm down my judgmental stance here. Hey, he's nothing if not confident, and can I really fault him for that?

And I thought they handled the playtest very well.

I guess I've gotten over the seeming vanity of Mr. Goodman and the hype machine that surrounded the game. I told myself months ago that I would ultimately wait to see the finished product before giving my final verdict on the game.

Perhaps I've been too hasty all along?

Looks like I need to get the damned thing and wrap up my conflicted feelings for DCC, Mr. Goodman, and the company that bears his name. Stay tuned. I may yet become another convert.

UPDATE: Also, I just found this other interview with Joseph Goodman, and this one makes him seem much more human and down-to-earth.

Two Rosetta Stones?

I think it should be apparent to anyone who's been reading my blog that I have a deep love of Castles & Crusades. Some may even know that I have been developing a deeper appreciation for Labyrinth Lord. In studying both systems for some time now, I came across an interesting tidbit: both games claim to be "Rosetta Stones." Want proof?

Look here (where it says "The Rosetta Stone of Roleplaying Games") on the Troll Lord page for C&C, and here (where it says "The Rosetta Stone of Old-School Fantasy Role-Playing Games!") on the Goblinoid Games page for LL. In light of this, one might say it's no coincidence that I am so attracted to both games. ;-)

 

Now, looking deeper, one notices that Troll Lord claims that C&C is the Rosetta Stone of Roleplaying Games. That statement seems to include ALL roleplaying games. Whether or not the Trolls wanted to make as grand a statement as that seems, I'm not sure (though the Trolls are so in touch with their fans that it wouldn't be hard to ask them!).

Whereas Goblinoid claims that LL is the Rosetta Stone of Old-School Fantasy Role-Playing Games, a much more focused and distinct segment of the roleplaying pantheon. Goblinoid has firmly placed their game in the ranks of the old-school, "D&D-esque" fantasy gaming realm.

But upon reading Troll Lords' game, one realizes that Castles & Crusades also seeks to promote an old-school style of play. Indeed, the game seems to combine a bit of 1E AD&D and a bit of 3E D&D as well. Many consider the game to be as much of a retroclone as Labyrinth Lord. I'm not so sure I agree with that, as there are deviations from the AD&D classes to consider (C&C rangers do not cast spells, which I totally agree with...that's just one example of many) and the C&C SIEGE Engine attribute check mechanic is not exactly like the 3E d20 roll versus DC mechanic.

This might all be "duh" stuff and me just thinking too much about this. I'm not really trying to get too analytical about this or foster a debate as to what these two companies intended to state when they wrote those words. I'm not sure how much thought was put into these Rosetta Stone statements. I'm not trying to get too deep into this, I really just thought it was a fun tidbit of information.

However, as lighthearted as I am about the whole thing, I would love to hear what others have to say. Please chime in if you are at all interested. Thanks!

Between hope, wonder, and ambivalence...

That's where I find myself, folks, in light of Wizards of the Coast's latest move: the announcement that they will be reprinting the 1E AD&D books that St. Gary laid down all those years ago. Wow. I really feel like this is surreal. Let's talk about this, shall we?

What is WotC up to? That's my gut reaction. Sorry to be cynical. But seriously. Are they really finally taking a page from the OSR, admitting that old editions have their place in the gaming world and not just some fringe movement? Are they giving props to the OSR, actually listening to long-time fans of the game's many incarnations from the last few decades? Do they want to play nice and live in harmony with fans of all editions of D&D? Is this an extension of the squishy 5E feelings that they're pushing?

Or is all this some ploy to steal the OSR's thunder? Because as expected, the news of 1E's reprinting (albeit a limited release, supposedly) has some OSR diehards crying foul. Why? Because, the diehards say, this will make OSRIC obsolete. Uh, I personally am not so sure about that. I can see how some might consider WotC re-releasing OOP edition as a move to quash the OSR. Every group has conspiracy theorists, right? I'm not so sure it would mean the end of all the retroclones, though. Ironically, some might find the clones to be more user-friendly, having given the old rules better organization, etc.

For me, these days, if I wanted to play in the 1E style, I would just keep playing Castles & Crusades. For me, C&C takes the spirit of 1E and blends it seamlessly with the best of the 3E mechanics (I'm sorry if I sound like a broken record, with the C&C love I constantly spout). I'm not sure I would even want to go back to the old 1E rules as originally written, as heretical as that may sound to some. But, let's keep in mind that Gary gave the C&C guys his blessings back in the day, so...there you go.

Is WotC just jumping on the bandwagon? That would be something of a victory for the OSR, eh? The movement has become something that WotC can no longer ignore, eh? I wonder what all the "This Is A Dying Hobby" doomsayers are thinking right now.

I've been so busy today that I haven't had time to do any reading on the 1E situation, so I don't know if WotC has released a longer statement as to why they are reprinting Gary's masterpiece. But between this and their "kumbaya" 5E love-fest ("it will bring all D&D lover's together!"), I'm really feeling a bit like I'm dreaming. I really don't know what to think at the moment. It seems to good to be true. Or at least to good to be kosher.

So I just wanted to vent. I sit here between hope, wonder, and ambivalence about all of these recent developments, and frankly I just don't know what to think. And I know I'm not alone. Thanks for listening to me babble. I'd love it if someone would babble back, to let me know what you're all thinking out there.

Interesting times we live in, eh?

UPDATE: Since I can't seem to post a comment to my own blog at the moment, I'll respond to all the people who stopped by through this update.

Chris Creel: Glad you got a laugh outta that! And I agree that there's a good likelyhood that 5E will take some inspiration from C&C (this opinion is no surprise given my *ahem* boner for C&C ;-).

Greyhawk Knight: Thanks for the insight, specifically the reminder that this is a limited print run. And those who don't want to plunk down the cash on the Hasbro of the Coast altar can also take up the OSRIC cause.

Martin: Hey there! Good to hear from you! How are things? Agreed on the hype factor on the part of WotC, the canny bastards! And you worked with WotC before, right (no judgement there, of course)? Who better than you to know their tactics? Yeah, this 1E reprint thing smacks of another olive branch that is designed to test the OSR interest in "official" D&D.

To Gwydion and all: thanks for the reminders of the real purpose behind the clones.

James and Tenkar: thats for stopping by and for helping to put things into perspective!

Did you know about The One Ring?

Sorry I haven't posted for a few days, I've been tied up with work. My usual Wednesday night game didn't happen tonight, so I'm at home and tooling around the Internet, thinking about what to post since it's been too long since I last wrote something here. And as I was wandering around, I chanced upon The One Ring: Adventures Over the Edge of the Wild!

Did anyone out there know about this upcoming RPG?! Of course, I am intrigued to no end! One of my fantasies has been to run a campaign in Middle Earth, and apparently I'm not the only one with that hankering! I assumed I would use one of the various incarnations of D&D as the rules behind a Lord of the Rings game, and get some setting help from the MERP books I own and other resources. But this discovery of mine tonight seems to have changed the game, no pun intended!

Anyone have any intel on this? Is anyone as excited as I am? I need a prescription medication for Gamer ADD!

*UPDATE: Go here for more details!

System, Style of Play, and Heroes

So, yeah, a LOT of bloggers have written about their thoughts on the Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG beta since its release yesterday morning. Akrasia put together a small list of blogs besides his own that commented on DCC, but now the number of bloggers that have “reviewed” the beta rules has exploded! Yes, for good or ill, the DCC RPG has stirred up the blogosphere. Every blog from Grognardia to Your Dungeon is Suck has chimed in on the subject.

I still think that it’s sort of gimmicky, and an attempt to tap into the ever-growing OSR movement. I’m not faulting Goodman Games for the attempt. But I think they really turned on the spin machine. The beta version of the game seems, to me, to be trying too hard to be old school, whatever old school really is. Seriously, the definition of old school (not that I think there should be one) is a moving target. Does old school refer to games from a certain era? Is it a style of play? Is it rules light? Is it a combination of these things? I suppose the real answer is that old school gaming is whatever each gamer wants it to be. So trying to publish a "truly" old school game is like trying to hit a rapidly moving target. What Goodman Games has done is put forth its own version of an old school game. I know that it’s great for people to be passionate about what they do. But I think Goodman went a little too heavy on the hype, and it may be that they’ve sort of created a level of expectation that no game can live up to. Or I could be totally wrong.

Some have taken issue with DCC’s statement that player characters using the system are not heroes. Again, I think the company took hold of what it thought are the foundation stones of old school gaming and ran with those ideas. But they might have run too far. Are they saying that in old school gaming the PCs are not heroic? Does game system determine such a thing as whether or not a player can create/play a heroic character?

I’m a huge Joseph Campbell fan. I loved Hero with a Thousand Faces. After I read that book, I looked at the early versions of D&D as being about playing archetypes. The strict division of classes brings forth very archetypal roles: the warrior, the healer, the trickster, the magician…and also mythological beings such as dwarves, elves, etc. I’m not really sure off the top of my head the genesis behind the classes that Gygax and Arneson created for their original game (maybe someone can enlighten me!), but they do seem to tap into some ancient archetypes.

Sure, those early versions of D&D gave you most of your experience from treasure and killing things. But is that because the creators were still steeped in the more mechanical world of wargaming? Did they not really consider the roleplaying aspect in those early days? I guess what I’m saying is that they probably didn’t purposefully make D&D just about slaying and treasure. The game was a new offshoot of miniature gaming, which probably never really involved a lot of roleplaying.

So for Goodman Games to make it such a badge of honor, and declare characters as not being heroes, just seems a bit, well, short sighted. It seems wrong-headed.

All of this makes me think of some recent posts I read regarding system and style of play. I totally agree that the rules of particular game systems can indeed lend themselves to different styles of play. The early D&D games lend themselves to more hack and slash styles of play, perhaps, as well as a focus on gaining treasure. But as time went on, some gamers sought to add more “depth” to characters and their games. The later versions of the game began to focus on making characters more like individuals, rather than broad archetypes. The characters started to develop whole lives, with backgrounds that could become quite detailed. I think Pathfinder made 3rd Edition more "cinematic," so characters are still individuals but more like those you see in movies (i.e. larger than life). Now, 4E has pushed the characters into the realm of superheroes, who are powerful right from the start.

And this is ok, because change is natural. This is why I’m a believer in the recent “I’m with D&D” pseudo-movement (something of a reaction against Edition Wars). There’s no reason to deride those who play different editions, because different editions facilitate different styles of play.

Now, can you play a long campaign that’s heavy on plots and intrigue and interaction with NPCs using OD&D? Absolutely. Can you use 3.5 Edition to just do dungeon crawls? Sure! Therein lies the power of imagination and the individual tastes of gamers. So it is possible to overcome the influence of system on style of play.

So I believe that gamers just need to pick the system they're most comfortable with and have fun. I think each system has its obvious pros and cons. But they also have their own variation on the theme of heroes. Yes, that’s right, I said heroes. There are many different types of heroes. And they all need not be knights in shining armor. Some can be uncivilized or even self-serving. But does that mean that they cannot be heroes? And speaking of knights, don’t they need to gather up treasure too?

So again, to assume that old school roleplaying is not populated by at least some heroes is sort of strange. It makes Goodman Games seem somewhat out of touch with the real roots and motivations of the OSR.

To take my own admonition to “play and let play” to heart, I won’t fault anyone who falls in love with DCC and makes it their game of choice. I just think it was a poor choice on the part of Goodman Games to make it seem like they sought to create the “perfect” old school game that would tap into some conception of an OSR zeitgeist. Now, I know that the company never stated such a thing. But it sure seemed like they were trying really hard to make all of us think so.

NOTE: The DCC RPG's stance on heroes has sparked something of a "side" controversy, and other people besides me are giving their opinions on the matter. Things are getting more and more meta all the time ;-) Take a look here and here, for example.

My Impressions of Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG

Yep, it’s time to talk about the elephant in the blogosphere.

Perhaps something of a caveat is in order before I get into my impressions on Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG (hereafter referred to as DCC), the latest and arguably greatest roleplaying phenomenon to come down the proverbial pike since…take your pick: Swords & Wizardry, Labyrinth Lord, OSRIC, Castles & Crusades, Hackmaster Basic, OpenQuest, etcetera etcetera ad infinitum.

Here’s the caveat: I’m grumpy today. It’s in the 90’s here in good old Southern New Jersey. It’s not even summer. These temperatures are no doubt going to be the norm from now on thanks to climate change. I miss my nice full springtime. I dread the disappearance of the equinoxes. Another part of the caveat: perhaps the massive solar flare of yesterday has affected my mind.

Now the third and perhaps most pertinent part of the caveat: for good or ill, I usually don’t react well to hype. Whenever something seems to be super popular (or infamous), my gut reaction is to distrust said hype (again, whether the hype is positive or negative). But I’m trying to set that knee-jerk reaction aside, as well as my grumpiness, when I write about DCC in a moment. I am not going to do an in-depth review per se, but I wanted to give some impressions as I scan through it, in the spirit of sharing.

Let me open by saying that there certainly was a lot of blogosphere hype leading up to the game’s beta release today. I think we can all agree on that. That hype did ignite my knee-jerk negativity toward anything trendy. But even putting that aside, there still seems something a wee bit suspect about how much positive press DCC was getting seemingly sight unseen. To me, it sounded like a few DCC insiders were active in the blogosphere in order to lay some groundwork before the release. I guess that could be considered “astroturfing” (i.e. a false grass roots movement) to get the OSR crowd primed for the game.

Now all that said, I’m trying not to be so skeptical. I don’t really want to believe all that. But it’s still strange to me that there was so much of a positive buzz surrounding the game before the beta. I guess some of the big OSR movers and shakers could have gotten advance copies of the beta, given their influence in the blogosphere. Anyway, just something to think about…

Now that I’ve gotten all that off my chest, let me spend some time going over some impressions as I go through the beta.

First of all, the art. I know there’s been some negative and positive reactions to the art. Some see it as too plentiful and/or too “professional” for a game that claims to be “old school.” Personally, I like it. I never got the whole “old school must equal amateur art” thing. I think those who feel that way are just being overwhelmed by nostalgia. To me, the art is not too obtrusive, adding just the right amount of balance and breaking up the text nicely. I like the juxtaposition of the comic strip pieces and the more serious depictions of adventurers. The comics seem inspired by the old strips one might find in the old Dragon magazines. I really love the little touches of homage, like the drawing on page 17 that’s a recreation of the AD&D alignment drawing.

I’m not down with the Zocchi dice thing. If I actually play the game, I’ll be resorting to rolling the appropriate old fashioned, even-numbered dice and dividing as needed (if possible, as I believe there are some Zocchi dice that are not so easily divisible). Ultimately, my opinion is that this usage of "weird" dice is mostly just a gimmick, and that just doesn't sit well with me.

I like the “How is this game different” bit near the beginning. That was quite helpful. BUT it also sort of telegraphs the fact that the game is really for gamers, don’t you think? It makes it seem to me that there was never any real hope that the game will be discovered by newbies to the hobby. This might tap into one of the broader arguments in the OSR regarding whether or not the old-school gaming phenomenon will be able to pull in many new gamers (or if those who make up the OSR really want to have new blood brought in at all). On the other hand, perhaps Goodman Games is hoping the veterans will seek to introduce a new generation of gamers to the old-school style. That’s the possibility that makes me feel the happiest, and I hope that was the intention, since I’m one of those bleeding heart old school gamers who wants everyone to just get along when it comes to roleplaying (translation: screw the edition wars!).

Anyway, I’m glad that the game goes out of its way to proclaim that there are no attacks of opportunity. I HATE attacks of opportunity above all other latter-day D&D “additions.” This and some of the other declarations make it seem like the guys at Goodman Games are tapped into the OSR zeitgeist, if there is such a thing. All I know is, it made me smile. But that’s all because of personal preference.

I was intrigued by the mechanic that would allow wizards to NOT lose spells once they are cast. It’s like some semi-Vancian magic system, something that might appeal to gamers who are perennially turned off by the relative weakness of low-level magic users.

The game seems rather complicated in some areas, at least when it comes to the usual simplicity of old school games. For instance, I’ve tried to think about a quick and easy counterspell mechanic that can be used with Castles & Crusades. I’ve always dreamed of having mage duels in my games. It was cool to see the spell duel rules in DCC. I’m heartened to see someone feels the way I do. BUT their spell dueling system seems complicated to me. Lots of steps involved. Now, I may just be getting old and have limited free time, and that’s why I prefer very rules-light systems. So take all this with a grain of salt.

I know, I know, I’ve stumbled into the dangerous realm of “does old school mean rules light or not.” I don’t necessarily think that old school games need to be super-duper rules light, but they are at least lighter for the most part. Let’s not get into that whole mess right now.

As far as skill checks are concerned, I wasn’t impressed with what was shown in the beta rules. They’re just ported over from D&D 3.0/3.5 whole cloth. Blah. I’m not really upset by the use of skill checks. I just don’t see anything innovative about what DCC is doing here. Heck, my beloved Castles & Crusades uses skill checks, just a slightly different take on the mechanic. I just hope that they don’t go touting this aspect of the game as revolutionary.

This and other aspects of the game that I’m reading don’t strike me as terribly different from what has come before. And wasn’t DCC touted as being something innovative? To tell you the truth, it really seems like someone did a really professional job on a house-ruled, “Frankenstein’s monster” system that borrows a little bit of everything from the various fantasy RPGs that have existed over the last three or so decades.

So bottom line: I don’t feel a real urge to play this game once the full version comes out. I think there was a lot of hype about it being innovative, but that was mostly just advertising for lack of a better word. I don’t fault Goodman Games for trying to add another facet to the OSR diamond. I won’t even get all skeptical and cynical and claim that Goodman just did it to cash in on the OSR (unlike WotC, who I am convinced are trying to cash in on the OSR). I am sure that the Goodman folks are passionate and honest folk with good intentions. But while I can appreciate the homage to the origins of the hobby, and I think there are some ideas they put forth that are intriguing and fresh, there isn’t enough “new” when it comes to DCC to truly make it the game-changer (no pun intended) it was made out to be. It’s another potentially solid addition to the wondrous variety of games on the market. Now, depending on your stance on the whole topic of whether or not there can be too many games to choose from, this can be a good or bad thing. Me, I can sometimes swing back and forth, but most of the time I think the more the merrier.

Of course, this is all based on the beta rules. I might take a look at a copy of the full rules once they hit the street.

So there you have it. I’ve added my opinion to the growing cacophony. I’m interested in hearing your thoughts on DCC if you’re so inclined.

UPDATE: I also forgot to mention that I'm also grumpy because I didn't get to go to my regular Wednesday Night C&C session! Grrr...

TrollCon East in Words and Pictures!

So, I'm taking a break from my job hunting (doing pretty well so far...got my updated resume together and I'm putting my networking skills into overdrive!), and I've downloaded some photos from my cellphone that I took at TrollCon East the other night.

Here's a shot of the mountain of C&C stuff the Trolls brought with them (every time I see this one I imagine a choir of angels singing):


Yes, that is indeed a fat stack of Castle Keeper Guides at the top of that pyramid of awesomeness!

The next pic is a shot of the Troll Lord himself, Steve Chenault, serving as Castle Keeper at the head of the table! You can see he improvised a CK screen! I feel like in this shot Steve's saying "I'm coming for you next!" to a hapless player!

Actually, that can't be farther from the truth! Steve ran a great game on Saturday night (the night I attended the Con), and he was the epitome of the cool gamemaster! It really was a great experience to meet him and his fellow Troll, Tim Burns. Steve was outgoing and hilarious, and he never tired of talking to all of us about C&C as well as other stuff, such as how much he loves the Dogfights show on the History Channel, and how Arkansas and New Jersey share a connection because both states are the targets of a lot of jokes!

All in all, Steve and Tim were so down to earth. I could really tell they were so passionate about their game system, and roleplaying in general. The fact that they came all the way out to New Jersey for this relatively small Con is a testament to their dedication and appreciation of the people who love their system. I have to say, they've won me over! I was dabbling in the system before, but now I'm officially a C&C convert!

You can read the Troll's blog post here for a wrap up of the Con, as well as some some images. I'm in this particular photo (I'm all the way to the left of the shot, the guy with the dark hair in the green sweatshirt).

Anyway, once I get back on my feet with a new job, I'll definitely be converting my current campaign to C&C!

A Tale of Two Catalogs

So, as I was digging through my old RPG stuff at home recently, I came across some interesting items from the early 90's. That era was the peak of my Dragon Magazine collecting, and I went through a spate of ordering the free stuff (mostly catalogs) advertised in the magazine.

In my recent delvings I found the following "catalog" (I use the term catalog loosely, because it's really just several sheets of 8.5x 11 paper stapled together) from Wizards of the Coast, circa 1992:


WotC was clearly a small outfit at the time. All they were really marketing in 1992 is material for the Talislanta game!

Now, I also recently found in my stuff one of the TSR catalogs from 1992. Here are some scans of that:

My, how things have changed over the years, eh? Very indicative of the sheer glut of stuff TSR was putting out. I find it so strangely time/mind warping to look at this old stuff. The sense of time displacement is so weird! Meanwhile, has anyone else seen the cover of the WotC 2011 catalogue (2011?! My teenaged self in 1992 could not even conceive of such a year! I was too busy pondering what the undoubted wonders of 2000 would be)? It shows the Larry Elmore artwork with the fighter going up against the red dragon from the cover of the D&D Basic "red box" set. And I think they're using that same image and design from the old Basic box for Essentials. Does anyone else find this apocryphal?! They're trying to associate their D&D Essentials line with OD&D? It's all very strange indeed...