dcc rpg 3rd Designer's Diary is up

[Stainless]

At this link;

http://www.goodman-games.com/forums/vie ... =60&t=8530" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Maliki]

Thanks for the link, part of me like the way magic sounds in the DCC RPG, but another part of me worries about it being much dice rolling/complex.

[Ravenheart87]

When DCC RPG was announced, I was skeptic ("Yay, a lite 3e, it was definitely needed..."), but with every designer's diary Goodman posts, I'm getting more and more excited. It's going to be something unique and interesting. It also seems to be quite light (or at least not as heavy as 3e and 4e), while including some crunchy bits I love - critical hit tables, spellburn, patrons, interesting spellcasting system, etc...
Damn, this and HackMaster will surely make this year fantastic. Oh sh*t, and Tome of Horrors is coming too...

[Oedipussy Rex]

A successful roll causes something to happen - but not always the same thing. A high-level wizard casting magic missile can achieve a much more impressive result than his level 1 brethren - not just "more missiles," but a fundamentally more powerful spell result.

Because magic missile is a D&D staple, it provides a good example of what I mean by "lack of predictability in spellcasting." In traditional D&D editions, magic missile includes a modicum of unpredictability: for example, in 3.5, each missile did 1d4+1 damage, and a higher-level caster receives a predictable number of additional missiles. In DCC RPG, magic missile is fundamentally more variable. Here is the table of spell results. Remember that the caster rolls 1d20, and adds his caster level and Intelligence modifier, so a level 1 wizard is usually adding +2 or +3:

1-11: Lost. Failure.
12-13: You can throw 1 missile that does 1 point of damage. You must have line of sight to the target. The missile flows unerringly and never misses, though it may be blocked by certain magic (e.g., magic shield).
14-17: As above, but 1 missile does damage 1d4 + caster level.
18-19: As above, but 1d4 missiles that each do damage 1d4 + caster level. All missiles must be aimed at a single target.
20-23: As above, but 1d4 missiles that each do damage 1d6 + caster level. You may aim each missile at an individual target.
24-27: As above, but one extremely powerful missile that does damage 4d12 + caster level. Range is increased to 1,000’, provided line of sight is maintained.
28-29: As above, but 1d8 missiles that each do damage 1d8 + caster level. Range is increased to line of sight, as long as missiles travel in a direct path.
30-31: As above but 1d10 missiles that each do damage 1d8 + caster level. Each missile may be aimed individually. Range is line of sight, regardless of whether a direct path exists; e.g., the caster may launch a magic missile through a crystal ball or other scrying device. These missiles have limited ability to defy magic shield and other protections; compare this spell check against the spell check used to create the magic shield. If the magic missile check is higher, the magic shield has only a 50% chance of absorbing the missiles (roll individually for each missile). Any missiles that make it through do damage 1d8 + caster level, as noted above.
32+: As above but 1d10 missiles that each do damage 1d10 + caster level. The caster may direct these missiles individually as a single action, or may direct them all at a single target who is not present or visible, provided he has specific knowledge of that target. In this case, the caster must have a physical memento of the target (hair, fingernail, vial of blood, etc.) and spend 1 turn concentrating to cast the spell, then continue concentrating as the missiles seek their target. The missiles will aim for this target even if it is concealed or invisible, though they have a maximum range of 100 miles. The missiles will turn, curve, re-trace their route, and make every effort to reach the target, although they cannot cross planes. The missiles can travel up to 10 miles per second provided no obstacles are present, but speed is much lower if, for example, they must navigate underground caverns. Provided a direct route exists, the missiles will strike the target unerringly.

Ok, yes, I know what he's going for. I applaud their efforts. But I have a problem with this. So what's the difference between a 10th level magic-user getting a 14 on the spell roll then rolling a 1 on the d4 for the number of MMs and 1 on the d4 for the damage and another 10th level magic-user getting a 32 on the spell roll, a 1 on the d10 for the number of MMs, and a 1 on the d10 for damage when they are both attacking the same hobgoblin standing in front of them? That's a level of unpredictability that I don't like. The minimum results of a poor success is the same as the minimum result of an exceptional success. I'd prefer my unpredictability to be more front-loaded (in the spell roll) than dispersed throughout the spellcasting process. In fact, the more successful the spell roll, the more unpredictable the final result.

Warning: Self-promotion. I'm taking this opportunity to plug my take of "unpredictability" in spellcasting by encouraging any who are interested to check out the links in my signature.

[Machpants]

Well if you don't like unpredictability this game is not for you, one of the stated goals is to stop min/maxing as a viable option through unpredictability!

Looks like a very interesting game, and rolling on those tables shouldn't be too bad, with 4-6 spells per wizard mentioned.

We shall see, at least it is original!

[Oedipussy Rex]

I don't mind unpredictability. As I stated, I prefer it to be more front-loaded. Look at the worst case for barely succeeding (roll an 11), you get 1 missile that does 1 point of damage. Now look at the worst case for exceptional success (roll 32+, aka a critical hit), you get 1 missile that does 1 point of damage. Now, I'll grant you that the odds that you do 1 point of damage on a critical hit is 100:1, as opposed to 1:1 for barely succeeding. But I'd like to think that the worst case scenario for success would increase as the degree of success increases, even if it's only a single point of damage for each step. In this system, no matter how well you succeed, the worst case remains flat.

Oh, and it cannot all that original if I'm seeing similarities to the system I wrote. And that's not a knock on Goodman.

[rabindranath72]

So what's the difference between a 10th level magic-user getting a 14 on the spell roll then rolling a 1 on the d4 for the number of MMs and 1 on the d4 for the damage and another 10th level magic-user getting a 32 on the spell roll, a 1 on the d10 for the number of MMs, and a 1 on the d10 for damage when they are both attacking the same hobgoblin standing in front of them?

There is a huge difference. It's true the minimum result is the same, but this doesn't tell the whole story; you must reason in probabilistic terms.
For the first case, the probability of inflicting 1 hit point of damage is 0.25*0.25=0.0625. For the second case, the probability is 0.1*0.1=0.01. Hence, the first wizard has a ~500% higher chance to inflict 1 hit point of damage.
In terms of dice, the first is equal to the chance of rolling 1 on d16. The second is equal to the chance of rolling one on d100. Large difference indeed.

[Omote]

Hmm. DCC is just not doing it for me. I'm not sure how fighter options are going to work, but it sounds pretty $#!44y to be a wizard.

~O

[dorentir]

Ok, yes, I know what he's going for. I applaud their efforts. But I have a problem with this. So what's the difference between a 10th level magic-user getting a 14 on the spell roll...

This doesn't bother me due to the unpredictability of dice rolls, as mentioned by Rabindrath. I had been using a crital hits table for many years that is in principle similar to the DCC magic missile rule. My crits were scaled by class and level and other advantages: a high level fighter with a magic sword would probably deliver a more devastating crit than a 0-level dude with a broken chair leg. But the fighter could roll <expletive deleted> on his damage and the 0 level guy could get a result where the dice favored him. (did a similar thing for fumbles --- the more skilled you are, the less likely you are to get a really bad fumble... but it is still possible... and I can remember at least one occssion where someone fumbled and ended up accidentally killing one of his opponents (just not the opponet he was trying to hit!).
Luck can be a fickle bitch. It suits the strange, dangerous, gritty world that Goodman has been referencing in his design diary.

[Oedipussy Rex]

Ok, let me try one more time. It's not that a poor roll for a spell can have a better end result than the end result of an excellent spell roll, it's that the worst case for an excellent spell roll is no better than the worst case of a poor roll. In fact, I don't have a problem with a 1st level magic-user getting a better end result on a poor spell roll than a high level magic-user with an excellent spell roll. It's that the worst case for success never changes.

[rabindranath72]

Ok, let me try one more time. It's not that a poor roll for a spell can have a better end result than the end result of an excellent spell roll, it's that the worst case for an excellent spell roll is no better than the worst case of a poor roll. In fact, I don't have a problem with a 1st level magic-user getting a better end result on a poor spell roll than a high level magic-user with an excellent spell roll. It's that the worst case for success never changes.

D&D and its ilk totally work based on similar grounds. A fighter and a magic-user both wielding a dagger do the same amount of "worst case" damage: 1 point.
In Classic D&D both a fighter and a magic-user automatically fail their attack if they roll a 1.
A 9th level fighter and a 9th level magic-user have the same worst-case amount of hit points: 9.
And I could provide other examples.
What makes things substantially different in the above cases, is that a probabilistic element enters the equation, so the "worst cases" have so hugely different probabilities of happening, that they can be considered "different" in an almost deterministic way.
Just out of curiosity, have you changed all these rules in D&D?

[Oedipussy Rex]

Invalid comparisons, one and all. You got me in the right mood that I'll address them individually.

A fighter and a magic-user both wielding a dagger do the same amount of "worst case" damage: 1 point.

In D&D, all that matters is if the attack is a success; if you need to roll a 9, D&D doesn't care if you roll a 10 or a 19, it's just a success and you roll the exact same dice for damage regardless. In DCC the level of success is significant. The higher you roll over the required number, the better the success, resulting in different dice to be rolled.

In Classic D&D both a fighter and a magic-user automatically fail their attack if they roll a 1.

And? What does failure of an attack have to do with a system that rewards great success? Failure being an option isn't the issue. Nowhere in this thread is there a statement that has anything to do with the possibility of failure.

A 9th level fighter and a 9th level magic-user have the same worst-case amount of hit points: 9.

Again, And? Also, the worst case for a 9th level fighter or magic-user is still better than the worst case for a 1st level character, which is 1. On top of that, with a Con bonus, it's possible for a 1st level fighter to have a better hit point total than a 9th level fighter. As I stated above, I don't have a problem with that. Is it likely to happen? No. But the possibility exists.

What makes things substantially different in the above cases, is that a probabilistic element enters the equation, so the "worst cases" have so hugely different probabilities of happening, that they can be considered "different" in an almost deterministic way.

So frickin' what? I've already granted that the probability of the worst case is much less for great success than it is for poor success. But guess what, the chance still exists! Just because it isn't as likely doesn't mean it won't happen. My issue is about when it happens. Not about the likelihood of it happening or if it might happen. What I'm not liking is what happens When It Happens.

I don't get extended warranties. What's the worst case with an extended warranty? My electronics breaks down either before the manufacturers warranty expires and the money spent on the extended warranty is wasted, the electronics breaks down after the extended warranty expires and the money is wasted, or it breaks down during the extended warranty but it's something not covered and the money is wasted. I do, however, buy fire insurance. What's the worst case there? My house burns down with all of my possessions, killing my pets. Now, it's far more likely that an electronics purchase will break down than it is that my house will burn down. Exponentially so. Should I drop my fire insurance and start buying extended warranties?

Just out of curiosity, have you changed all these rules in D&D?

I don't know what you're asking about. Do you mean the game I wrote that's linked in my signature? Because Sorcerer Character Has Warrior Adventure isn't a D&D variant and doesn't use the OGL. I've been told it has some similarities to Savage Worlds, but I wouldn't know about that as I've never read or played that system. Comparisons have also been made to Dungeon Squad, which isn't invalid, but SCHWA would be the 900 lb gorilla compared to DS's lemur.

[Oedipussy Rex]

EDIT: Apparently the post to which this post is a response was deleted while I typed.

I have absolutely no problem with D&D. The D&D system is roll to see if you hit, roll damage if you did. The DCC system, from what I can tell, is roll to see how well you hit, roll varying damage based on how well you did so. D&D: Did I succeed? DCC: How well did I succeed? In a system where the question is, "How well did I succeed?" the worst case for exceptional success shouldn't be as bad as the worst case for poor success, no matter how unlikely that worst case may be. That's the problem I have.

Let's try this analogy: D&D is a roll of those scratch tickets. What's the worst case for a win on a scratch ticket? You get your money back for the ticket. But each ticket is either a winner or not and the amount you win is independent of anything other than the ticket itself.

DCC, again, from what I can tell, is the Powerball Lottery. What's the worst case for a minor win, i.e. you get only the powerball correct? You win two dollars. What's the worst case for getting all the numbers correct? Someone won the lottery the week before. A lottery ticket may be a winner or not but, unlike a scratch ticket, how much you win depends on how many numbers you got correct (and how long it's been since the last winner, but let's ignore that for now; the analogy is flimsy enough as it is). Now imagine that it was possible, through some strange statistical fluke, that by guessing all numbers correctly you win all of two dollars. It's highly unlikely that it could ever happen, but there you are holding a winning lottery ticket worth two whole dollars -- not even fifty cents for each correct number. That's what can happen in the Magic Missile example in the link in the OP.

So to reiterate, I have no problems with how things work in D&D and my complaints don't apply because D&D asks a different question -- "How often?" Not "How well?"

[rabindranath72]

I totally get what you are saying.
The fact is, both D&D and DCC have this same "problem," which can be abstracted this way: two characters of two radically different skill levels can achieve the same end results, when you would expect one of them to be deterministically better (rather than stochastically better.) It's easy to see that both DCC and D&D usually fall into the "stochastically better" camp.
Hence my perplexity at why you can accept this "fault" with D&D, and you can't accept it with DCC.

[Oedipussy Rex]

Because I don't have a problem with two characters of two radically different skill levels achieving the same worst case result. I have a problem with two radically different initial conditions (the spell roll in the Magic Missile spell) in a (somewhat) deterministic system (DCC - good initial conditions tend to produce better results than poor initial results) producing the same worst case result.

(Man, I hope I don't come off like an idiot, using deterministic when I should be using stochastic. I took the classes, but I really didn't like probability and statistics. Ha. Yet here I am, playing games that are all about probability. You stated that you had no intention of downloading my game, but I wish you would. I'm interested in your take on the mechanics. Download the landscape version if you take me up on this. The booklet is meant to be printed out.)

What I find amusing is all this discussion in a forum that has no connection with the product discussed; my carrying on about a system I highly doubt I'll ever play, let alone purchase; and a simple house rule of:
1-11: Lost. Failure.
12-13: 1 missile for 1 point
14-17: 1 missile, 1d4 + caster level damage.
18-19: 1d4 missiles, 1d4 + caster level damage.
20-23: 1d4 missiles, 1d6 + caster level damage.
24-27: 2d4 missiles, 1d6 + caster level damage.
28-29: 2d4 missiles, 1d8 + caster level damage.
30-31: 2d4 missiles, 1d10 + caster level damage. Chance to penetrate Magic Shields.
32+: 3d4 missiles, 1d10 + caster level damage. Ignores Magic Shields.

and I'm happy. The worst case for the best initial condition of success is 3 points of damage, which sucks, but it's better than the worst case for a poor initial condition of success of only 1 point of damage.

The probabilities of success and achieving each level of success don't bother me. I don't see a 1st level magic-user having a 5% chance of the best result for initial condition but a 0% chance of the second best initial condition (a Nat20 gives the best result on the table) and magic-users always having a minimum 5% chance of failure, regardless of level, as an issue.

The comparisons to D&D don't really apply as D&D always has the same initial condition of success regardless of class or level. The probability of success may be different but the initial condition of success is the same (you hit), not including houserules of critical hits or hit location charts, so I'm not concerned that the worst case of success is always the same.

OR I just need to get out of the house, make some friends, and maybe get a girlfriend.

Nah. Interpersonal relationships are messy. Better to just channel all my anger and fears at anonymous strangers on the interwebs.

[Stainless]

I kinda agree with Oedipussy Rex. I generally don't like rolling to see how many dice to roll. Here it's even worse, you make one roll to determine the dice you roll to determine how many other dice you roll. That's alot of digging around for dice. Since you don't know how many MMs you will fire -or- the type of die they will do for damage, the player can't prep for his casting by getting his dice ready. That sounds like alot of wasted game time spent digging through your dice bag. To cast magic missile, the player might need four d4s, four d6s, ten d8s or ten d10s. That's 28 dice that need to be dug out to be prepared to cast the spell.

Joseph Goodman has replied to another thread about the DCC RPG on the Enworld forums. Firstly, to establish his obvious credentials, I think it's clear he has a lot of experience with running D&D games (multiple versions) considering he's owned a business largely based on D&D for all of his adult life. Anyway, his opinion in that thread was that the DCC RPG runs from twice to thrice faster than an average 3.5e game and about ten times faster than an average 4e game. That's based on over a year of play testing at conventions via himself and multiple DMs who are not as intimate with the rules as he is.

Yes, D&D is not the be all and end all, so the DCC RPG will be longer and more fiddly than other RPGs (e.g., I'm very experienced with Trail of Cthulhu). But it's a significant and widely understood yard stick he's using. I think the point he's been trying to make is, that it may look convoluted through the snippets of draft rules released so far, but he has his eye explicitly on speed and ease of play so....time will tell.

To Oedipussy Rex, I agree that if the mechanic is to be one that gives you extra game effects the higher your "to hit" roll is, then what one really wants is a results distribution where both the mean and range increases with increasing "to hit" rolls. What you've seen in the example of the MM table could be Goodman's inability to grasp that or agree with it. However, it may just be a draft rule, ripe for revision, or he wants to avoid the fiddliness of making distributions with dice. As the above post has pointed out, to many people, rolling multiple dice is a bad thing, so there are conflicting pressures in the game design; roll too few dice and you get artefacts of the sort you've identified or roll too many dice and find the game is too fiddly for a significant number of players.

[dorentir]

I don't think "taking more time to run a typical encounter" is necessarily a problem unless the 'more time taken' involved seems unfun or a drudgery.

[Oedipussy Rex]

I kinda agree with Oedipussy Rex. I generally don't like rolling to see how many dice to roll. Here it's even worse, you make one roll to determine the dice you roll to determine how many other dice you roll. That's alot of digging around for dice. Since you don't know how many MMs you will fire -or- the type of die they will do for damage, the player can't prep for his casting by getting his dice ready. That sounds like alot of wasted game time spent digging through your dice bag. To cast magic missile, the player might need four d4s, four d6s, ten d8s or ten d10s. That's 28 dice that need to be dug out to be prepared to cast the spell.

I'm almost afraid to respond (given that my participation in this thread so far has mainly been to piss on the parade) but I like rolling dice. I especially like rolling a lot of dice and the anticipation as I count the totals. I do agree with you that it would be better to know before casting the spell (or maybe, the die is cast, if I can conflate the different meanings of "die" and "cast") which dice I might be rolling a lot of.

Warning: More self-promotion. In my system, the attack roll determines the number of times you roll the damage die; e.g. if you roll 4 over the target number, you roll 4 damage dice. But you know ahead of time what the damage die is. This also works for spells, which has a skill roll like DCC. You have a target number to beat to successfully cast a spell and if the spell does damage, heals, etc., you roll a number of dice equal to the degree of success of the spell roll. But again, you know ahead of time which die you will be rolling. The die may change between castings, but that's because the player decides what damage/healing/etc. die will be used, increasing the the number to roll over as the die size increases.

I want to add that while I like rolling dice (especially hard plastic dice onto a wooden table; it's just not the same on plastic or chip-wood tables), I hate dice rolls as a substitution for role-playing and problem solving. "You enter a well-furnished study with bookcases, some portraits on the walls, a couple comfy chairs with side tables, and a clean fireplace. There is a locked door in the wall to your right. Make a roll." "I rolled a 19." "The door opens when you push a button hidden behind a false panel behind some books on a bookshelf on the opposite side of the room." Um, no.

"I'm searching the room." "How are you searching?" "I'm looking behind pictures, behind books, quickly riffling the pages of the books, behind bookshelves if they aren't built-in. I'm tapping for hollow spaces. I'm looking under tables, on the bottom of tables, in drawers, under drawers. I'm feeling cushions for anything sewn into them..." "Ok, I get the idea. Roll." "I rolled a 19." "You find a hidden panel behind some books on a bookshelf on the opposite side of the room from the locked door." Better.

[dorentir]

"I'm searching the room." "How are you searching?" "I'm looking behind pictures, behind books, quickly riffling the pages of the books, behind bookshelves if they aren't built-in. I'm tapping for hollow spaces. I'm looking under tables, on the bottom of tables, in drawers, under drawers. I'm feeling cushions for anything sewn into them..." "Ok, I get the idea. Roll." "I rolled a 19." "You find a hidden panel behind some books on a bookshelf on the opposite side of the room from the locked door." Better.

I actually prefer the way we used to do it long ago... i.e.:
Player: "I'm looking under the bed..."
DM: "You find a pair of slippers and a chamber pot."
Player 2: "I move aside the carpet and check the floor... does the rug look valuable by the way?"
DM: "The rug is pretty threadbare and tattered; you don't think it would be worth much, but undernesth you find a trap door..."

[Oedipussy Rex]

So you didn't roll for finding secret doors or traps?

Although technically, if we weren't searching for a trap, we didn't roll to find it, either -- just for damage.

[goodmangames]

The game ain't done yet! That's why there's a public playtest scheduled. Good point on the scaling of "how many missiles" are gained with high rolls on magic missile.

[Oedipussy Rex]

OH, NO!

*runs and hides*

[dorentir]

So you didn't roll for finding secret doors or traps?

Although technically, if we weren't searching for a trap, we didn't roll to find it, either -- just for damage.

We rolled for secret doors, but not for 'concealed doors' (i.e.: a door behind a tapestry that you could not see unless you pulled aside the tapestry). Those you had to find by describing where you looked.
I recall describing the characters using poles to probe things that were suspected of being trapped, etc., rather than a dice roll. So if you thought the floor was trapped, you might toss the corpse of a dead opponent on it, etc. Personally, I find this style of play (where the player describes what or how they do things and results are adjudicated from that) to be a more immersive one than using a funny accent while speaking in the first person, predetermining psychological quirks that will artificially govern your character's actions, etc.

[Oedipussy Rex]

*wistful sigh to be a teen again and having the free time to play daily and not having to take shortcuts to accomplish more in less time*

I do agree with you on the latter part of your post. Community theater rejects who spend their time "exploring their character" annoy the crap out of me. Note: this isn't a rejection of speaking in the first person or using accents. It's a rejection of those who use a social game as a stage for a one-man show.

But back on topic; holy crap, Goodman was here. How am I supposed to anonymously bad-talk about him and his game if he's going to show up?

[dorentir]

*wistful sigh to be a teen again and having the free time to play daily and not having to take shortcuts to accomplish more in less time*

I don't honestly think it necessarily 'automatically takes up more time' to adjucate such minor tasks verbally rather than rolling for it (assuming 'rolling for it' involves the referee determining some sort of target number, the player (or DM) rolling a dice and adding modifiers, then comparing what is rolled to the target number, etc.).

I did notice that when I did it this way a few years ago, I did not tend to have a lot of rooms or encounter areas crowded with lots-and-lots of furnishings simply because it could get tedious to have the players describe exactly how they were searcing in the 900 nooks and crannies one might find in a room crowded with furnishings... and, honestly, as DM I made up a lot of the inconsequential details on the fly. So maybe 'realism' in terms of room furnishings takes a hit, but so what? As DM I was not above 'fast-forwarding' through searches that were routine (i.e.: if the player found a store room with 100 crates and announced they would search each one for valuables, I would have just determined how many hours it took, rolled for wandering monsters and given them the run-down on the contents).

However, this probably has nothing to do with the DCC game so I apologize (other than I hope these suggestions might become grist for the designer's mill).

[mhensley]

He posted some cool new art from the game-



http://www.goodman-games.com/forums/vie ... 0&start=75" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Oedipussy Rex]

*wistful sigh to be a teen again and having the free time to play daily and not having to take shortcuts to accomplish more in less time*

As DM I was not above 'fast-forwarding' through searches that were routine (i.e.: if the player found a store room with 100 crates and announced they would search each one for valuables, I would have just determined how many hours it took, rolled for wandering monsters and given them the run-down on the contents).

This was what I was trying to convey. I always have them do a roll, however, so if they fail they don't know if it was because they didn't find something hidden or because there was nothing to find. However, if they say they're checking every crate, they have no chance of discovering the secret panel in the ceiling for which the crates were stacked to allow access. (Yeah, yeah. I know. Elves.)

[Finarvyn]

I thought the DCC RPG was already written and done.

Far from it. DCC is only partway through a long journey. Here's the general timetable. I can probably track down more exact dates if anyone cares....

Around a year ago -- Joseph Goodman begins a select playtest in secret of some RPG rules. I know that when I e-mailed him about it around that time he was still denying that such a game was even being considered.

A few months ago -- Goodman Games officially decides that the DCC RPG is feasible and that it will be created. A few public playtests are "leaked" onto blogs and whatnot. A few B&W flyers are issued at select conventions.

Late December 2010, early January, 2011 or so -- Goodman opens up a DCC RPG section in the Goodman Games forum for public discussion. Playtests are still in the "alpha" stage and availible only for select people. Folks can pre-order the game. Some of the art (cover, etc) is posted. Design Diary posts begin to appear. It is emphasized that many elements of the RPG are continually being tweaked and adjusted, which is partly why only select Alpha playtesters have rules access.

Now -- discussion is underway on the forums. Joseph says he's watching the boards but won't say how much of this content will or won't be in the Beta playtest.

June, 2011 -- the "beta" playtest doc is supposed to be released to the public for discussion and home play. A DCC RPG module is supposed to be released to the public which will be compatible with Beta rules.

June to November, 2011 -- Continued playtest, revision, etc. Final decisions on RPG content and rules will be made somewhere along the line by Goodman.

November, 2011 -- target release for the DCC RPG.

I think a key thing that most people seem to be missing is that much of the rules system isn't set in stone yet. Joseph wants to create a low pagecount, fast running RPG that will give the feel of the old Appendix N fiction. When folks say "I don't like DCC because..." usually they are misinformed because many of those things they don't like probably won't be in the final product. Rules are still being tested and if they slow down the game I think that Joseph will cut them out. Obviously, we're on "hold" a bit until June for an official Beta release, but what I've been able to cobble together seems pretty neat.

Hope that helps.

[Stainless]

Giving it a bit of slack for a slight delay, I'm very much looking forward to a cosy Christmas; snow outside, a fire roaring in the grate, a mug of warm stout, and a fresh crisp copy of the DCCRPG to curl up with. Magic!

[Maliki]

I thought the DCC RPG was already written and done.

Far from it. DCC is only partway through a long journey. Here's the general timetable. I can probably track down more exact dates if anyone cares....

Around a year ago -- Joseph Goodman begins a select playtest in secret of some RPG rules. I know that when I e-mailed him about it around that time he was still denying that such a game was even being considered.

A few months ago -- Goodman Games officially decides that the DCC RPG is feasible and that it will be created. A few public playtests are "leaked" onto blogs and whatnot. A few B&W flyers are issued at select conventions.

Late December 2010, early January, 2011 or so -- Goodman opens up a DCC RPG section in the Goodman Games forum for public discussion. Playtests are still in the "alpha" stage and availible only for select people. Folks can pre-order the game. Some of the art (cover, etc) is posted. Design Diary posts begin to appear. It is emphasized that many elements of the RPG are continually being tweaked and adjusted, which is partly why only select Alpha playtesters have rules access.

Now -- discussion is underway on the forums. Joseph says he's watching the boards but won't say how much of this content will or won't be in the Beta playtest.

June, 2011 -- the "beta" playtest doc is supposed to be released to the public for discussion and home play. A DCC RPG module is supposed to be released to the public which will be compatible with Beta rules.

June to November, 2011 -- Continued playtest, revision, etc. Final decisions on RPG content and rules will be made somewhere along the line by Goodman.

November, 2011 -- target release for the DCC RPG.

I think a key thing that most people seem to be missing is that much of the rules system isn't set in stone yet. Joseph wants to create a low pagecount, fast running RPG that will give the feel of the old Appendix N fiction. When folks say "I don't like DCC because..." usually they are misinformed because many of those things they don't like probably won't be in the final product. Rules are still being tested and if they slow down the game I think that Joseph will cut them out. Obviously, we're on "hold" a bit until June for an official Beta release, but what I've been able to cobble together seems pretty neat.

Hope that helps.

Thanks for the info, some of what I've seen/heard thus far I've liked other parts not so much, but as you point out it is still a work in progress, so I will be picking up the beta-version and giving it a good once over.