DCC Adventures

Interested in Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG?

My first for-publication adventure for the system, Bone Hoard of the Dancing Horror, is currently with the editor at Purple Duck Games.  I have to say that I am really excited about this, and I hope that you will enjoy playing through it as much as I enjoyed writing it.  There is at least one truly nasty encounter in the adventure that, with luck, your players will not soon forget!

I am now working on a second adventure, Through the Cotillion of Hours, for characters of any level.  If anything, I am even more excited about this adventure than I am about Bone Hoard!

It takes a while to go from writer to editor through approval to release, but if you are interested in these adventures, please let the good folks at Purple Duck Games know!

DCC House Rule: Learning the Hard Way

In Dungeon Crawl Classics, a character’s skill set is very much determined by his starting occupation as a 0-level character.  A character is trained in anything that his occupation would have him know, and makes related skill checks using 1d20.  If the character’s background doesn’t support a task, he uses 1d10 instead.  If the Judge is uncertain, the character uses 1d10 and gains a +2 bonus.

I find it desirable to sometimes reflect changes in skill level.  For example, a character who was a scribe might tutor his herder friend so that the herder could read a little better.  Or a barbarian from Cimmeria might spend time in the Thieves’ Quarter of Shadizar the Wicked and gain some small level of skill thereby.  Conversely, a beadle who hasn’t set foot in a church for many years might be somewhat rusty.

The Dice Chain can be used to simulate growth of skill, or atrophy of skills that are never used.  Basically, if the Judge feels that an untrained skill is being used repeatedly in important circumstances, with serious consequences for failure, he can allow the character to make checks against that skill one step up the dice chain.  For example, a gong-farmer who spends three adventures on a caravan might learn to handle camels using a d12 instead of a d10. 

Conversely, if that same gong farmer avoids examining dung, even when it is relevant, the Judge may eventually have him roll checks to do so using a d16 instead of a d20.  Atrophy of skills should reverse up the die chain with any success, as old habits are remembered.

It is important to keep a short leash on this idea, because, while simulating character growth is desirable, growing to the unwieldy mass of skills some other games list is not.   No skill should ever surpass rolling on a d20, or fall below rolling on a d10, as a result of using this method.   This should be used to add flavour only – if it becomes a headache, or a bookkeeping exercise, simply drop it!

Weapon Training

If a character relies on a weapon she is not trained in over the course of three adventures, the Judge may, but does not have to, allow that weapon to be included in her list of trained weapons.  This rule should be used more so that the Judge can introduce new, esoteric weapons to the game milieu than to allow player characters to “get around” current class restrictions.  The Judge is strongly advised to determine, before the weapon is introduced, which classes may benefit from training.  The Judge need not communicate this information to the players.

Free RPG Day

On Saturday, June 16th, I will be running two Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG events at Dueling Grounds in Toronto.  Each of these events is for 3-10 players.  There is no advanced seating or sign-up for these events.


The first adventure is The Jeweler That Dealt in Stardust, a level 3 scenario by Harley Stroh. A jeweler and fence has gone missing, and his house of jewels now sits empty. Surely a cunning thief could make his way inside to steal the unguarded riches?  This starts at Noon, and is set to run to 3 pm (maximum extension to 3:30).


The second adventure is The Undulating Corruption, a level 5 scenario by Michael Curtis. The characters learn of a purported Crucible that can cure their wizard's corruption...but reaching this cure is not easy!  This starts at 4 pm, and is set to run to 6 pm (maximum extension to 6:30 pm).


Pregenerated characters will be provided for both scenarios.


Drinks are sold in store.  


No food or food garbage allowed; there are local places to eat in the area.


http://www.goodman-games.com/FRPGD12preview.html

DCC House Rules: Three Strikes & Backstabs

THREE STRIKES

(Cribbed from RCFG)

The Judge may declare any skill attempt to be unable to succeed after a single failure (in some instances), and normally after three failures.  There is a reason that characters usually only gain three chances to succeed at a particular task — it prevents the game from becoming stale.

In some SRD-derived games, a character can keep making checks until she succeeds. This means that, unless there is some penalty for failure, when the GM sets the DC, he automatically knows the end result.  Skills become a binary on/off switch, where either an eventual roll of “20” (or less) will succeed, or it will not.  It is desirable that an achievable DC can be set without dictating the outcome.

Three chances still allows characters to take two wild stabs at a task before burning Luck to increase the chance of success.  Each check takes time, of course, and other consequences of failure or time spent may occur.

BACKSTAB

A Backstab is intended to be a strike from surprise, where the Thief manages to get behind an individual or to make an attack against an individual who does not know he is there.  It is not intended to allow a Thief to make more Critical Hits in combat than a Warrior.

A Thief cannot normally Backstab a creature once that creature is aware of him (as, for example, usually occurs once the Thief has Backstabbed another opponent in the same combat).  It is normally insufficient for the Thief to simply make a Hide in Shadows or Sneak Silently attempt once in combat.

A Warrior or a Dwarf can perform a Mighty Deed to distract an opponent, giving the Thief a chance to make a DC 20 Sneak Silently attempt to get the drop on an opponent (and thus, a potential Backstab).  For every point the Deed Die is over 3, the Thief gains a +1 bonus to the stealth attempt.

If opponents are outnumbered, three or more Thieves can manoeuvre around a single opponent so that one is behind the opponent and has the potential to Backstab.

The Inevitable Post About 5e,

or, A Love Letter to Wizards of the Coast, 

or, Is it time for "WotC Next"?

It has to happen, so here goes.  Keep in mind that my opinions are not direct-from-source, because there is no way that getting the D&D Next playtest materials is worth agreeing to the terms of the NDA.

Overall, what I am hearing – even from those saying negative things – makes me cautiously optimistic about 5e.  It sounds as though the designers took my “Why System Matters” blog posts and then, point by point, made sure that 5e would work for sandbox gaming.  Understand that I am not saying that they did any such thing, but, if they did, kudos for them.  Also, it seems as though the Delve Format is dead!  That particular thorn in the arse of WotC adventure design couldn't have been removed soon enough!


5e has moved, for me, from “D&D Pass” to “D&D Maybe”.

This “Hit Dice” thing is needlessly confusing.  In RCFG, the almost-identical mechanic was called “Shaking it Off”, and, as that is OGC, I don’t see why Wizards wouldn’t use it.  It sounds a hell of a lot better than calling it “Hit Dice”, which has a completely different meaning.   Shaking it Off went through numerous incarnations while playtesting RCFG, and it worked very well there.

The idea of Themes and Backgrounds should make a character different, but make character creation easier.  Kudos on that.  Likewise on adopting a simple Advantage/Disadvantage system….although, for my money, the “Dice Chain” of Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG is the best simple system for this that I have come across.

I am a bit dismayed by the continuation of disassociated mechanics, such as fighters doing damage on a miss, and the idea that wizards can endlessly magic missile.  Magic is cheap when there is no cost, and magic should not be so cheap in D&D.  May I recommend a “lesser missile” as a cantrip, that requires an attack roll and does less damage than a dagger?  The advantage of this lesser missile  is that you don’t need a dagger.  Moreover, each “cantrip” could be linked to an actual spell, which must be memorized in order to continue using the cantrip.  Use up your real magic missile, and you can no longer use your lesser missile, either.  Making these sorts of choices – dealing with real trade-offs – is a big part of the game.

(Not an original idea or observation, that, but a better plan than at-will free magic missiles.)

I have previously said that if D&D Next fails, it won’t be the fault of the fans.  That remains true, but it is also true that if D&D Next succeeds, it won’t be because of the fans, either.  It will only succeed if the product is good, the marketing is good, and Wizards creates goodwill with the fans.  Announcing the release of earlier edition materials was a good start on generating goodwill.  Now, if WotC can keep the lawyers from messing things up, there is a chance of a successful edition here.

The NDA was a bone-headed move that tells us “We’re going to keep doing business like we did with 4e”.

I don’t think D&D Next can survive that.

I have said previously that, for any new edition of D&D to be relevant to me, Wizards is going to have to reinstate the OGL.  As things stand, when 6e comes out, no one who signed that NDA can legally make a “derivative work” like OSRIC or Pathfinder for 5e.  And the people who signed the NDA are the hard core gamers who would most likely wish to see support continue for an edition they like.

Grab the bull by the horns, WotC, if you want to see this edition succeed.  You need to make us believe that the needs of the game – and the gamers! – are as important as the needs of the lawyers and the shareholders.  You need to tell us why there are some weird terms in the NDA (or better yet, get rid of the NDA altogether).  Likewise, you need to be upfront about what kind of licensing this edition is going to use.  The longer you wait, the more people you lose.

So far:

(1) The design of the new edition shows some promise.  You still have work to do (obviously) and you need to ditch disassociated mechanics from the core rules.  Add them as modules if you must.

(2) The marketing is certainly good enough to attract attention, and although there is a certain amount of “dancing around the elephant in the room” in the fan outreach, it is otherwise following a good course.  This is especially true when compared to 4e.

(3) You have a lot of work to do on goodwill.  Deal with licensing upfront, deal with the NDA.  Set some limits on where the concerns of the lawyers take precedence over the concerns of the fans.  You need us more than we need you.  Show us you understand that, and that you are willing to make us want you instead of need you.  Oh, and plan ahead so you don’t have to lay anyone off for the holidays.

You need to be “WotC Next” as much as this game needs to be “D&D Next”.  The Wizards that gave us the OGL is gone.  You cannot afford to be the Wizards that gave us the GSL, that gives folks the old heave-ho for the holidays, or that values protecting itself from the slightest risk over fan enjoyment of product.  That Wizards has to go.

Be WotC Next.  Embrace it.  IMHO, it’s your best chance for success.

Now, I’ll be perfectly honest here.  You probably aren’t getting my “favourite go-to game” spot – Goodman Games already has that sewn up with a tidy little bow – but you could still end up with a version of D&D that I want to play.  As I had written you off some time ago, that’s actually pretty amazing. 

DCC NEW HOUSE RULE REWRITE: Learning Spells on the Fly, or, The Slippery Slope of Arcane Doom

A wizard or elf may attempt to learn a spell he is aware of without spending the requisite time to study, but such an attempt is hazardous. First off, the character must make a check against DC 10 + the spell level as part of an attempt to cast the spell. The initial check consists of 1d16 + caster level + Intelligence modifier.

If this check fails, the character suffers a misfire from the attempted spell. If this check results in a natural "1" the check automatically fails, and the would-be caster suffers corruption as well. In addition, in the event of a natural "1", all subsequent attempts to learn the same spell on the fly reduce the die used for the check, as per the die chain.

However, each failed attempt also gives a +1 bonus to learning the spell if normal research is then used, to a maximum bonus of +4.

If the character succeeds, he has learned the spell! However, the hap-hazard method of learning requires a second Mercurial Magic check with a -20 penalty to the roll. The effects of both Mercurial Magic checks take place whenever the wizard or elf casts this spell.

S is for Sandbox Part IV: A Sample Minor Adventure Site (3): Hermitage and Temple 1

Well, a lot has happened since the last “S is for Sandbox” column, including the advent of the Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG, which has become my favourite published role-playing game of all time.  This isn’t a major problem, but, going forward, I am going to be using that system in my examples.

The DCC RPG assumes that characters begin as 0-level nobodies, and the party of adventurers is whosoever survives the “0-level funnel” that is the initial adventuring session.  For this purpose, I am assuming that the party has already gone through the funnel, and consists of either 1^st level characters or a mix of 1^st and 0-level characters.  The temple will therefore be designed under the assumption that it will be introduced at such low levels, and probably explored initially between 1^st and 3^rd level.

Let’s see how the new ruleset changes the work we’ve already done.  I’m not going to go back over the wilderness area – by the time this series is done, you should be able to do that yourself without any difficulty if you want to use this region – except where it is important to ongoing development.

1005: Outbuildings:  This is the site of the Hermitage.  The outbuildings include the hermit’s quarters, a common area for guests (including a stable as part of the common area).  The cellar beneath the hermit’s quarters includes a secret area wherein treasure from bandits, goblins, and pirates may be hidden.

The hermit is a 6^th level thief.  This level was chosen so as to allow interaction with starting PCs, where the hermit will not be instantly overwhelmed, while at the same time making it possible for the PCs to defeat him later.  Besides which, living alone in the (near) wilds as he does, the hermit will need some class level “oomph”!

Now, we can be pretty sure that the hermit is no longer 6^th level in DCC.  Instead, this is probably a 2^nd or 3^rd level thief, and following the general rule of each DCC level being equivalent of 2 levels in most similar game systems, I am of the opinion that he should be 3^rd.  Based on the description of the Thief in the DCC core rules, we can also assume that he is Lawful.  Appendixes S and T help us to give him a name:  Llulch the Psalmist.  You will note that I chose a clerical title, rather than one indicated for a thief, because our thief is disguised as a hermit.

The rulebook suggests not worrying too much about “correct” NPC stats.  We don’t have to fully develop a 3^rd level Thief to create our rogue.  In fact, we probably want something between the bandit hero stats and a fully developed thief.  To wit:

Llulch the Psalmist: Init +4; Atk staff +2 melee (1d4); AC 16; HD 2d8; Hp 5; MV 30’; Act 1d20; SP Luck (13, 1d5), Crit 1d14/II, Thief skills (Backstab +5, Sneak +5, Hide +7, Disguise +2); SV Fort +3, Ref +3, Will +1; AL L.

1204: Temple:  This is the ruined temple, beneath which the dungeon lies.  We might as well start calling this the Dungeon of the Skull, because that will be its most important feature.  Within the temple, there is an area that allows our hermit to mimic a cleric, effectively giving him access to a limited amount of curative magic each day.

In fact, let us make this a temple of Hermes (as the patron of thieves, healers, and magic, it seems appropriate).

This remains very much as it was, except that the hermit will have more limited healing, in accordance with the general DCC rules, and that healing will be based on both alignment and Hit Die.  We should also consider a bit more about Hermes, and the potential ways to use this temple within the DCC game:

• As a patron of Thieves and Healers both, we should declare Hermes Neutral.  Magic is also certainly not Lawful by nature. 
• “Quest for It”:  As a God of Healing, we should seed the temple or the dungeon with the means to gain exception healing, as an adventure or a quest.  This can be tied in with the Skull, in that the Skull can be the means by which PCs can learn how said quests can be performed.  The Skull, of course, is also working on her own agenda of being freed and restored.
• “God of Magic”:  There should be at least one, and as many as three to five, spells that can potentially be learned through the temple and the dungeon beneath.  Moreover, Hermes would make an excellent patron, and we should fully develop him as such.

1404: Goblin Cave:  When goblins visit the hermitage, they stay here.  As a result, there is goblin graffiti on the walls, carvings on the table, etc., that hints at what the hermit really is.  Unknown to the hermit, the goblins have begun mining here, trying to break into the Dungeon of the Skull.

When we were working with Labyrinth Lord, a goblin was a goblin was a goblin.  This isn't a bad thing, and works well for that system, but Dungeon Crawl Classics is a different animal.  Using the DCC RPG, we should strive to make these unique humanoids that are derived from the basic goblin.  Luckily, the DCC core book gives us charts to help with this.

Our “goblins” will be yellow, and will fight with two weapons.  The book suggests longsword and dagger, but we’ll leave what the weapons are open for the moment.  They are also bald and speak a racial language other than “goblin”….a random roll as per Thief in Appendix L suggested “Gnoll”, but for fun, let’s have them speak the dwarven language, as though they are degenerate dwarves.  Our details will progress from this assumption.  For example, they can fight with hand axe and dagger.  Their mining also makes sense in terms of dwarvishness as well as goblinness.  Although they are bald, we can allow them full beards.

If D&D Next Fails, It Won't Be the Fans' Fault!

http://yourbusinesssucks.wordpress.com/2012/05/25/why-are-we-surprised-that-dd-next-is-bad/

Mostly an okay post, but there was a bit that stuck in my craw:

"They’re done throwing that kind of effort into a brand full of toxic fans and endless bickering about products that won’t get sold."

Meh.

It wasn't the fault of fans that a toxic atmosphere was created, nor is it the fault of fans that 4e wasn't well-received.  Nor will the success or failure of D&D Next be due to anything other than the success or failure of WotC to put out a good product, market that product well, and undo to whatever extent they are able the ill-will their handling of the 4e release created.

And they have definitely taken some steps in the right direction, although I think that the NDAs for the beta playtest are a really bad idea (not required by most recent rpgs, including Pathfinder and Dungeon Crawl Classics, despite Mike Mearls' claim to the contrary), and I don't think 5e will fly without the OGL.

The systems that are doing well right now have the right combination of "good system + goodwill", and I don't think Hasbro is going to allow WotC the leeway needed to recreate the goodwill that was seen with the advent of 3e.

EDIT:

See this post:  http://timbrannan.blogspot.ca/2012/05/d-next-playtest-first-thoughts.html

I can't help but feel that some comments are pointed at things I've said.


"Every game company on the planet uses an NDA. There are exceptions of course, but those companies are exactly that. Exceptions.  Plus the two that are often mentioned, Pathfinder and Dungeon Crawl Classics, are so derivative of the SRD that there is not really much in the way of new material to protect."

Out of curiosity, what was the last time you were required to sign a NDA for a Beta Playtest other than D&D Next? Especially one described as an "open" playtest?  It is simply an untruth to state that  "every game company on the planet" requires an NDA for this sort of material.

It is also untrue that Pathfinder and DCC "are so derivative of the SRD that there is not really much in the way of new material to protect."  A funny comment, actually, when one considers the relationship between D&D Next and the rules solutions figured out by others.

Normally, one hopes that people WILL talk about a Beta. Talk volumes, talk specifics, talk, talk, talk, talk.

That talk certainly helped Pathfinder, it certainly helped DCC, and it could certainly help WotC.

AFAICT, the NDA in this case is about nothing other than who owns your comments and any ideas you might let drop. No more; no less.

So, here's the challenge: List who does require an NDA in the rpg industry.  It is easy enough to come up with who does not.  If those who do not are "exceptions", it should be easy to demonstrate this by exampling those who do.

I agree that Paizo and Goodman Games are exceptional publishers.  They are publishers who have garnered enormous goodwill from their fans.  They did this by following the tracks laid down in the early days of 3e....not just the ruleset tracks, but the fan appreciation tracks.  WotC used to be the leader in fan appreciation; now they are not.  But they would be wise to get back on that road, even if others have now gone far ahead.

It's as simple as that.

Pandas, Pirates, Players, and Funnels

If you’ve been following the discussion on pandapirate.net, there is some discussion of my post on initial adventures forthe Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG.  Paiji wrote:

Certes, mais j'ai l'impression qu'il s'éloigne un peu de l'esprit du jeu.

Si j'ai bien compris, il prévoit à l'avance de lier sa première aventure (son entonnoir) aux suivantes et de fournir des opportunités logiques pour que ses persos, arrivés au niveau 1, choisissent leurs carrières (notamment pour les jeteurs de sorts). Ca me parait dévier de l'idée que je trouve assez amusante de tirer 4 persos niveau 0 complétement au hasard, de les jeter dans une aventure et de voir lequel survit et arrive au niveau 1.

On perd le petit coté Highlander/Koh Lantah et, à mon goût, c'est dommage.

Après, faut voir comment tout ça est mis en place.

(see http://www.pandapirate.net/casus/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=20324&start=75).

As far as I can tell, given the limitations of Google translation and the fact that I am sadly not bilingual (or multi-lingual), Paiji is concerned that my observations go against the spirit of the game.  Specifically, he seems to believe that the idea of seeding the adventure area to prep for 1^st level characters is antithetical to the idea of throwing four 0-lvl nobodies per player into the funnel and seeing who comes out.

Not so!

Providing the means for religious experience doesn’t mean that any survivor will be a cleric, nor does seeding the area with potential spell knowledge or patrons mean that any survivor will be a wizard.  What it does mean is that, if some survivor should end up being a cleric or a wizard, that decision will make sense.

Likewise, the idea that the characters then have a chance to see how their schlubs have grown, and to discover a new facet of the original funnel – that some of their initial assumptions and understanding were wrong – is pure Appendix N.  It is also good game structure, and need not assume anything about who survives, or what class they will be.

What I am suggesting is meant to deepen the funnel experience, not to subvert it.

Hopefully, completion of When Cowled Men Creep and Beachhead (two 0-level funnels utilizing the theories in the original post) will make what I mean more clear to those who read and/or play through them.