Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG.
Had a chance to look at it since nobody else where I'm staying sleeps as little as I do.
Let's Be Honest Here: I'm not in the market for a new game. My interest here is seeing A- what I'm up against and how to approach differentiating my thing from Goodman's thing, and B- where it succeeds where I might not have so I know what I shouldn't be emphasizing and what I need to learn from it.
Let's Be Honest Here II: Alchemical Boogaloo: This game is going to be bigger than any of the OSR games as far as sales and market presence. The game doesn't fall on its ass. On first reading it seems to hit the mark it's going for and Goodman's promoting it right so far and the company's got a decent presence to begin with so upward and onward in that respect. I know I'm going to put in a healthy order for the game in my webstore.
The Snap Judgments:
I get a Hackmaster vibe from the whole thing. "This one goes up to 11" and the hard-coding of certain styles of fun into the rules. More charts, more tables, more emphasizing old schooliness as a gimmick instead of a byproduct of other priorities.
I don't see a lot of "I shoulda done that!" in there. My game's necessary reference material goes on the character sheet and the back cover of an A5 book so there's not a lot of page flipping during play. I can't even think of what real rules to put on a screen. DCC's design priorities are in direct opposition.
(an already oft-remarked upon thing related to this: I went for simplicity, so race as class makes sense. DCC goes for detail and fiddliness, so race as class really doesn't make sense. Why streamline there of all places?)
"DCC RPG, an OGL system that cross-breeds Appendix N with a streamlined version of 3E." I don't read this and feel like I'm looking at stuff inspired by Howard or Tolkien or Lovecraft or Vance or de Camp/Pratt the rest of them, or looking at a set of rules that encourage gaming that feels like those authors (ok, maybe de Camp/Pratt). This feels like a love letter to a couple old games, not to the authors or works of Appendix N. Or having all that much to do with 3e, for that matter.
(OD&D did capture the vibe of classic fantasy literature in ways that were sabotaged by Supplement I and were completely non-existent in D&D releases by the time Holmes and AD&D came around, but that's a blog post for another time)
As far as art, lots of good ideas (the fallen giant in particular is good), but ultimately Mullen's the one that stands out as really moving me here in execution. I'd kill the D&D re-dos and the rather obvious Warhammer mutant before the final version though. (oh, and my "in bed with the medusa" pic? Simply better.)
OK, time to do more necessary stuff. No access to my email from here though so if you've sent me something, you need to wait until the weekend for me to see it.
Had a chance to look at it since nobody else where I'm staying sleeps as little as I do.
Let's Be Honest Here: I'm not in the market for a new game. My interest here is seeing A- what I'm up against and how to approach differentiating my thing from Goodman's thing, and B- where it succeeds where I might not have so I know what I shouldn't be emphasizing and what I need to learn from it.
Let's Be Honest Here II: Alchemical Boogaloo: This game is going to be bigger than any of the OSR games as far as sales and market presence. The game doesn't fall on its ass. On first reading it seems to hit the mark it's going for and Goodman's promoting it right so far and the company's got a decent presence to begin with so upward and onward in that respect. I know I'm going to put in a healthy order for the game in my webstore.
The Snap Judgments:
I get a Hackmaster vibe from the whole thing. "This one goes up to 11" and the hard-coding of certain styles of fun into the rules. More charts, more tables, more emphasizing old schooliness as a gimmick instead of a byproduct of other priorities.
I don't see a lot of "I shoulda done that!" in there. My game's necessary reference material goes on the character sheet and the back cover of an A5 book so there's not a lot of page flipping during play. I can't even think of what real rules to put on a screen. DCC's design priorities are in direct opposition.
(an already oft-remarked upon thing related to this: I went for simplicity, so race as class makes sense. DCC goes for detail and fiddliness, so race as class really doesn't make sense. Why streamline there of all places?)
"DCC RPG, an OGL system that cross-breeds Appendix N with a streamlined version of 3E." I don't read this and feel like I'm looking at stuff inspired by Howard or Tolkien or Lovecraft or Vance or de Camp/Pratt the rest of them, or looking at a set of rules that encourage gaming that feels like those authors (ok, maybe de Camp/Pratt). This feels like a love letter to a couple old games, not to the authors or works of Appendix N. Or having all that much to do with 3e, for that matter.
(OD&D did capture the vibe of classic fantasy literature in ways that were sabotaged by Supplement I and were completely non-existent in D&D releases by the time Holmes and AD&D came around, but that's a blog post for another time)
As far as art, lots of good ideas (the fallen giant in particular is good), but ultimately Mullen's the one that stands out as really moving me here in execution. I'd kill the D&D re-dos and the rather obvious Warhammer mutant before the final version though. (oh, and my "in bed with the medusa" pic? Simply better.)
OK, time to do more necessary stuff. No access to my email from here though so if you've sent me something, you need to wait until the weekend for me to see it.
Working on a review of the beta, but I think that it does take pains to follow after one author from Appendix N: Michael Moorcock, esp. the patron rules.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to read that post on OD&D if you ever get around to writing it (as well as some more about D&D as a horror game).
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with you about the whole Appendix N thing.
(OD&D did capture the vibe of classic fantasy literature in ways that were sabotaged by Supplement I and were completely non-existent in D&D releases by the time Holmes and AD&D came around, but that's a blog post for another time)
ReplyDeleteYes, please!
I'm still puzzled over the copied artwork.
ReplyDelete(More charts, more tables, more emphasizing old schooliness as a gimmick instead of a byproduct of other priorities.)
ReplyDeleteSuccinct and keen... very well said.
“(OD&D did capture the vibe of classic fantasy literature in ways that were sabotaged by Supplement I and were completely non-existent in D&D releases by the time Holmes and AD&D came around, but that's a blog post for another time)”
ReplyDeleteI wanna read that post too.
I agree on the "in bed with the medusa" comment. However, DCC was going for slapstick, while your Medusa is definitely more Howardian or Merritian, for lack of a better description.
ReplyDelete