OOC

[Vargr1105]

DM: Hey Vargr1105 I need you to level Goratrix up to first level so I can appropriately handle his attacks etc... If you want me to do this for you I can just let me know.

The data for my chosen class (Fighter) hasn't been uploaded yet.

Ah my apologies I thought you had the book. I'll upload Fighter's tonight so you can get Goratrix up to speed.

Ok, so what exactly do I have to do to level up Goratrix? From what I read it seems I only have to roll 1d12 and add it to his Hit Points?


Btw, how do ability scores increase in DCC?

[AQuebman]

Ability scores increase through questing and RP there isn't a system of gaining ability scores or anything like that. I'm not done with putting the warrior out there but there isn't too much updating they need. They get a bonus to their initiative equal to their class level. They get the deed die along with their normal attack so you can make mighty deeds of arms declarations preferably along with your actions. Warriors are pretty cool if you can write up some flavor with your actions with the catch all that is mighty deeds.

They also crit more often as their threat range increases and they after a few levels hit a crit table nobody else reaches. They get to pick a type of weapon at 1st level and add their luck value to the attack bonus permanently.

[AQuebman]

The warrior write up is complete feel free to ask any questions if you have any Vargr. The leveling process shouldn't take too long i'd imagine warriors are pretty simple for the most part.

[AQuebman]

FYI my Wizard write up is going to be enormous. I'm covering everything about magic, the only thing that applies to you guys that I am not showing are spell duels which I will adjudicate at the appropriate time. The rules are a bit scattered so I think combining them and having a big explanation should help relieve confusion.

[Vargr1105]

Wait a second...

Luck: At first level, a warrior’s Luck modifier applies to attack rolls with one specific kind of weapon. This kind of weapon must be chosen at first level and the modifier is fixed at its starting value – neither the weapon nor the modifier changes over the course of the warrior’s career. The weapon type must be specific: longsword or short sword, not “swords.”

So G-man has Luck 4 (-2) will actually be crap with his weapon of choice?

[AQuebman]

Wait a second...

Luck: At first level, a warrior’s Luck modifier applies to attack rolls with one specific kind of weapon. This kind of weapon must be chosen at first level and the modifier is fixed at its starting value – neither the weapon nor the modifier changes over the course of the warrior’s career. The weapon type must be specific: longsword or short sword, not “swords.”

So G-man has Luck 4 (-2) will actually be crap with his weapon of choice?

Yes but you could also pick a weapon that isn't your weapon of choice in your case it's really up to you. That and luck can ebb and flow though it's easier to spend then to regain but it is possible to build it back up over time.

[ragnboneshopper]

But in this case the modifier doesn't change, right? Even if his luck goes up. At least that is how I read it. So what you're really picking, Vargr, is a weapon you're patently unlucky with. Role-playing opportunity!

[AQuebman]

But in this case the modifier doesn't change, right? Even if his luck goes up. At least that is how I read it. So what you're really picking, Vargr, is a weapon you're patently unlucky with. Role-playing opportunity!

Absolutely correct sir. Update coming as time permits at work my apologies I couldn't get it in last night it's in the works as we speak.

[AQuebman]

Update has been put out there. I'll upload the map here shortly.

[Vargr1105]

But in this case the modifier doesn't change, right? Even if his luck goes up. At least that is how I read it. So what you're really picking, Vargr, is a weapon you're patently unlucky with. Role-playing opportunity!

You know, I never quite got that philosophy that deems extraneous stuff not of your own choosing that screws you character mechanically to be a "roleplaying opportunity". For me, roleplaying opportunities are things that come up organically during play. And since you must have a living PC to roleplay in the first place, random mechanics crap that shafts the PC survivability chances are actually anti-roleplaying features.

This kind of reminds of that ubitiquous AD&D2nd "advice" who said you shouldn't play the cool character you want to play, and should settle for one with crap ability scores because "it is roleplaying"; it also said "roleplaying" was getting stuck with an Elven Fighter and not an Elven Ranger because your ability scores don't qualify...the "roleplaying" experience justification? You're playing an Elf who wanted to be a Ranger but suffers from an allergy to trees (true story).

DCC has failed here, astounding because weapon specialization had already gotten this right decades ago. So now what is supposed to be a class ability which helps the survival chances of your PC, may become a liability just because random dice rolled a random number during chargen? And it stays that way forever...just because? Even if he becomes the character with the highest Luck in the whole campaign? Can someone explain to me the logic of this? Because I can't see any.

And on that note, I would also like to know how Goratrix's "Fox's Cunning" ability just means he's worst at finding and disabling traps than everyone else. The DCC designers sure need a dictionary; that or I was not sent the memo telling me when "cunning" became synonymous with "incompetence".

So much "roleplaying opportunity" material here. Hey, I might just have Goratrix put one of his eyes out and break his own legs. Imagine the "roleplaying opportunities" that rolling into battle on a wheelchair while donning an eyepatch present..yaaay!

[AQuebman]

But in this case the modifier doesn't change, right? Even if his luck goes up. At least that is how I read it. So what you're really picking, Vargr, is a weapon you're patently unlucky with. Role-playing opportunity!

You know, I never quite got that philosophy that deems extraneous stuff not of your own choosing that screws you character mechanically to be a "roleplaying opportunity". For me, roleplaying opportunities are things that come up organically during play. And since you must have a living PC to roleplay in the first place, random mechanics crap that shafts the PC survivability chances are actually anti-roleplaying features.

This kind of reminds of that ubitiquous AD&D2nd "advice" who said you shouldn't play the cool character you want to play, and should settle for one with crap ability scores because "it is roleplaying"; it also said "roleplaying" was getting stuck with an Elven Fighter and not an Elven Ranger because your ability scores don't qualify...the "roleplaying" experience justification? You're playing an Elf who wanted to be a Ranger but suffers from an allergy to trees (true story).

DCC has failed here, astounding because weapon specialization had already gotten this right decades ago. So now what is supposed to be a class ability which helps the survival chances of your PC, may become a liability just because random dice rolled a random number during chargen? And it stays that way forever...just because? Even if he becomes the character with the highest Luck in the whole campaign? Can someone explain to me the logic of this? Because I can't see any.

And on that note, I would also like to know how Goratrix's "Fox's Cunning" ability just means he's worst at finding and disabling traps than everyone else. The DCC designers sure need a dictionary; that or I was not sent the memo telling me when "cunning" became synonymous with "incompetence".

So much "roleplaying opportunity" material here. Hey, I might just have Goratrix put one of his eyes out and break his own legs. Imagine the "roleplaying opportunities" that rolling into battle on a wheelchair while donning an eyepatch present..yaaay!

So I understand where your coming from but I have to disagree overall. Random ability score rolls on start up are just that random and come with it distinct positives and negatives. This along with the funnel provide a great detail of unknowns to what your character ends up as in the end. You also unlike being a demihuman had a choice of what class to go into and with those drawbacks known went into warrior. You have the benefit of being a hearty 16 Stamina warrior you just happened to have a low luck. Not all birth signs should be positive just like not all warriors are great with all weapons. If your worried about it mechanically pick a weapon you don't want to use and forget about it. I think what Rag's is trying to say is that you have an opportunity to roleplay around a detriment just like you can roleplay around how hearty and tough you are as well.

As a whole warriors still have a lot of power. The Deed Die alone provides a much greater chance of hitting/damaging a monster along with allowing you to do great feats just with a high enough roll and some imagination. They also crit often and overall have much more freedom then I have found in past systems. Unfortunately yes your base luck is abysmal and you will face that hardship but it's not all terrible and frankly I think adds a lot of character. Not all warriors will be the same, not even close.

Lastly DCC is built off of the idea that if you want X then quest for it. If raising your starting character's overall luck is your drive with this character then I can implement that into your future ventures. That goes to everyone this is your game i'm just telling it and adjudicating by the rules. I hope Vargr you can see the diversity and mix of good and bad that rag and I appreciate so much with the system. Who knows your next character might have 18 luck but crap physical scores, it's all up to the dice.

[AQuebman]

Also I played a character with no legs being wheeled around in a little red pull wagon and he was awesome!

[AQuebman]

Everyone please welcome Norjax to the game! He will be taking the role of the halfling prisoner you just freed from the beastmen.

[Vargr1105]

Ok, please do read all I wrote with a hefty chunk of salt, due to my usual ironic manner. I don't want to offend or madden anyone, and I am not pissed, screaming or jumping up and down on my chair as I type.

You also unlike being a demihuman had a choice of what class to go into and with those drawbacks known went into warrior.

Actually, I didn't. If you remember I decided to make Goratrix into a warrior before having the write-up available. I did this because he doesn't excel in any ability score that is associated with any D20 classes, and because Fighters (to my experience) are always the simplest class in D20 games and I didn't want to have to bother learning magic rules, etc.

It never crossed my mind that one of the main abilities that defines the Fighter class would be dependent on Luck. I was expecting STR, AGI maybe even STA...but LUK? Give me a break...

You have the benefit of being a hearty 16 Stamina warrior you just happened to have a low luck.

That is not the issue and it does not answer my question on why Weapon of Choice comes down to sheer dumb luck, or the logic behind it...which still eludes me. And for the record, Goratrix does not have "low luck" he has *shit low* Luck.

And STA is irrelevant to this issue, Goratrix could have become A Wizard or Priest or whatever and he would still have a hearty 16 stamina. What he would not have is his fighting ability shafted because some game designer on a brain fart decided the ability for a professional warrior to fight with his favorite weapon comes ultimately down sheer dumb luck.

Not all birth signs should be positive

And were did I say otherwise? The issue is, if they shaft you, why do they have positive names then? Would it have really been *that* hard to make a dual list of titles expressing what birthsigns do according to the LUK? i.e.: Fox Cunning / Mechanically Impaired; Eyes of the Eagle / Blind as a Bat ?

just like not all warriors are great with all weapons.

And where did I say all warriors should be great with all weapons? What I want to know is why a warrior with low LUK just happens to be magically worse than a non-warrior with a specific weapon, which is supposedly (given the title of the ability) his favorite one? And why it stays that way *forever* even when you increase LUK and its modifier?

If your worried about it mechanically pick a weapon you don't want to use and forget about it.

Wait, you honestly assumed I am so dumb to not have decided to do that already?

And of course we'll forget about it. We'll forget that Goratrix just has to discard a class feature due to crappy game design. I mean, what can we do about, right? It's on the book. It ain't like we can (gasp!) house-rule to sort out the fuck-ups of the designers, can we? Nope. If it's on the book, it's on the book. "Magister Dixit" and all that.

I think what Rag's is trying to say is that you have an opportunity to roleplay around a detriment just like you can roleplay around how hearty and tough you are as well.

And what if I *don't* want to roleplay around a detriment I had no choice about in the first place? And when did things that are imposed by nonsensical rules suddenly turned into "opportunities"?

And yeah...I did role-play the snot out of how hearty and though Goratrix was didn't I? With his massive 16 STA, and his minimum possible rolled Hit Points. Why, the dude's was veritable tank I tells ya! It truly be a good thing that I randomly aced my random 1d12 roll and now it doesn't seem like Goratrix will die as soon as someone touches him with a stick...why, if I had rolled a "1" your entire argument about "hearty and tough" Goratrix would fall flat on its face.

Wait...it falls flat on its face anyway. because the reason Goratrix is "hearty and tough" *now* is that I choose to play a HD 1d12 Fighter and got really lucky with one die roll...his STA really doesn't figure into it more than one sixth.

As a whole warriors still have a lot of power.

That is awesome! Now can I please play a warrior with lot of power that isn't shafted by rules with no logical explanation?

The Deed Die alone provides a much greater chance of hitting/damaging a monster along with allowing you to do great feats just with a high enough roll and some imagination.

Just like AD&D called shots, right? Sounds wicked! Now can I please do all that *and* have a warrior who isn't crap with his Weapon of Choice?

They also crit often and overall have much more freedom then I have found in past systems.

Oh, you mean exactly like 3E has done for 13 years? Well, that sounds cool. Now...if only Goratrix had the freedom *not* to be crap with is Weapon of Choice...

Unfortunately yes your base luck is abysmal and you will face that hardship but it's not all terrible and frankly I think adds a lot of character.

Now you've lost me. Please explain how being randomly shitty with one weapon "adds a lot of character".

What is this fetish I see that keeps equating random PC flaws with "character" and "opportunity". Does this mean PCs who are very good at something, or a lot of things, lack "character" altogether?

Not all warriors will be the same, not even close.

Yeah. Apparently on DCC it all comes to sheer dumb luck from beginning to end starting with the should-have-long-been-dead dinosaur of "roll 3d6 in order". So much for player ability, meaningful choice and all that.

Lastly DCC is built off of the idea that if you want X then quest for it. If raising your starting character's overall luck is your drive with this character then I can implement that into your future ventures.

Ahem...

You wrote, and I quote: "there isn't a system of gaining ability scores or anything like that"

You also confirmed that any future LUK increase will NOT remove Goratrix's penalty with Weapon for Choice.

So please elaborate on why I'd "quest" to increase LUK when there's no hard-and-fast system for it (just GM whim) and when it will not sort the issue at all.

"Here...make a quest to gain this reward which will not help at all sort your problem."

Seriously?

That goes to everyone this is your game i'm just telling it and adjudicating by the rules.

I though GM stood for "Game Master" and not "Rules Adjudicator"? You know, the guy that can actually make his own rules and rulings?

I hope Vargr you can see the diversity and mix of good and bad that rag and I appreciate so much with the system.

Oh I can certainly see it, and all the fetishist levels of chaotic randomness that go along with it. But I don't appreciate it much; especially the features that don't seem to make any sense.

You know, I enjoy some randomness in my RPG as much as the next guy, but it has to have two caveats:

a) make sense

b) not saddle folks with crappy bellow-average characters


Neither premisses (a), nor (b) are provided by the DCC system.

(And no, before someone goes knee-jerk on me, I am not saying Goratrix is a crappy bellow-average PC. Just that 3d6 in order will get you that more often than not)

Who knows your next character might have 18 luck but crap physical scores, it's all up to the dice.

Indeed, and that is just adding insult to injury. Because if Goratrix had crappy physical scores and 18 LUK he'd still likely be a better Fighter with his weapon of choice than he is now.

Again...bad game design.

Also I played a character with no legs being wheeled around in a little red pull wagon and he was awesome!

Good for you! Awesome! And you know what? If you were playing Goratrix, or any of the other PCs you could voluntarily chop his legs off and have fun to your heart's content role-playing him being pulled around on a little red wagon too.

But Goratrix's "I fight worse with my Weapon of Choice" is not a choice. It is a rule mechanics imposition, and one that doesn't make a lick of sense. Just because folks might think it is awesome, please don't call an imposition an "opportunity". An opportunity presupposes a thing called *choice*.

I cannot *choose* to play a Goratrix who isn't shite with his Weapon of Choice the same way you can choose to maul your character (or design it from the get-go to be that way). So please do not use that as an argument. You enjoy playing cripples? Great! I do not. (and no, before any of you gets all knee-jerk on me, I am not saying Goratrix is a crippled character).


Now, why have I written all this? I don't give a toss about Goratrix, I don't care if he lives or dies. If he buys the bucket I'll just roll a new one, It will most likely be turd, mechanically worse than ol'Goratrix and die horribly too to be replaced by a new turd, etc, etc until I am lucky enough to beat the odds and roll one of those awful PCs who doesn't have any "opportunities for roleplay".

Or...Goratrix will keep on living and dungeonin' and I'll keep running him.


But you see, I jumped on the bandwagon to play DCC because I was curious about what was being bandied as "the new bestest weirdest game in town" and that (allegedly) really "went back to the roots"; so my playing has also been an ongoing personal review of sorts. And so far I have seen nothing in the play experience that couldn't be done (and hasn't been done already) with good ol' AD&D, and the new gimmicks that are presented have been...well, crap honestly (and don't even get me started on things that have not come into play yet, like halflings and Luck, or how the Mighty Deeds of Arms system is ripe open for abuse and making the GM life hell).

DCC just doesn't seem nearly as good as the folks at Spellburn are gushing. Listening to them you'd half expect this to be the Second Coming of FRPG.

With nearly 40 years of game design behind it, DCC is turning out not to live to expectations, for me at least. I have seen no reasons thus far to exchange OSRIC for it and invest in packs on weird Zochhi dice.

In fact, I am beginning to think DCC modules could be more enjoyable if you'd just run them using AD&D or OSRIC or LL or whatever. The art, the attitude, and the ideas behind the modules are great...but AFAIK so far it's a shame they are saddled to DCC.


And last but not least, one peculiarly irritating (to me) feature of DCC, although it is hardly the only FRPG at fault in this matter, is that it uses game mechanics which are as old as a comfortable old shoe your grandfather used to wear, and claims they are innovative.
Dictatorial "thou SHALL roll 3d6 in order"? Done before. Character funnels? Done before. 0th-level characters? Done before. Choose your class later? Done before. Mighty Deeds? Done before. Corrupting Magic? Done before. Personalized visual/auditory spell effects? Done before. Race-as-Class? Done before. No multiclassing? Done before. Karma systems by spending "Luck"? Done before.


I am still not "getting it" on what DCC has that supposedly makes it so awesome as advertised compared to what was already available. This system better start surprising me positively in the future, and soon.

[AQuebman]

Vargr your personality has grown on me and makes me laugh. I disagree BUT i respect your opinions and plan on writing out a much longer and thorough retort to your wall of text.

I will admit im saddened you havent enjoyed yourself so if that doesnt change please dont feel.that I will be greatly upset because you want to leave etc.. not saying you will just want to put that out there in the open.

[Vargr1105]

Vargr your personality has grown on me and makes me laugh. I disagree BUT i respect your opinions and plan on writing out a much longer and thorough retort to your wall of text.

Cool.

I will admit im saddened you havent enjoyed yourself

Wait, wait, wait...who the heck said I have not been enjoying myself? I have been laughing out loud (seriously, I did laugh at a certain point) reading the stuff that is happening at/around the ziggurat.

I've surely been having fun, but it is due to *us* and some elements of the module, particularly the more "METAL!" stuff. But not thanks to anything particular about the *system* we're using. And now that we've leveled up and accessed the beginning of the upper layer of rules I am having a "WTF were they thinking?" moment. That is my whole point.

Heck, this campaign really took off when *we* collectively decided to throw away a part of the rules and turn this into a "just join now!" Gygaxian-style campaign where you can run anything from just one to up to four PCs instead of going funnel-by-the-book. That isn't part of DCC, it was *our* ruling. We could have been running this with any other of the rule systems I am playing on these forums (ok, apart from Star Wars D6).

Every fan of the DCC system I've read/heard makes it sound like there's something special about it that makes the play experience awesome. But I am just not feeling it. What awesomeness we've been having here is thanks to us, GM and players. And I'm noticing rule elements which seem, IMHO, to get in the way of it. I could also have mentioned the Initiative system, which format I don't like and which really doesn't fit the PbP medium.

so if that doesnt change please dont feel.that I will be greatly upset because you want to leave etc..

Dude, I don't just pick up and leave PbP games I'm a player in. I'm still in campaigns who went thru moments of near-collapse. My personal issues with the *system* we're using here doesn't even remotely compare to those.

Hmmm...unless "dont feel.that I will be greatly upset because you want to leave" is code for "I wish ya'd just leave, goodbye and good riddance!"

[AQuebman]

I will admit im saddened you havent enjoyed yourself

Wait, wait, wait...who the heck said I have not been enjoying myself? I have been laughing out loud (seriously, I did laugh at a certain point) reading the stuff that is happening at/around the ziggurat.

I've surely been having fun, but it is due to *us* and some elements of the module, particularly the more "METAL!" stuff. But not thanks to anything particular about the *system* we're using. And now that we've leveled up and accessed the beginning of the upper layer of rules I am having a "WTF were they thinking?" moment. That is my whole point.

Heck, this campaign really took off when *we* collectively decided to throw away a part of the rules and turn this into a "just join now!" Gygaxian-style campaign where you can run anything from just one to up to four PCs instead of going funnel-by-the-book. That isn't part of DCC, it was *our* ruling. We could have been running this with any other of the rule systems I am playing on these forums (ok, apart from Star Wars D6).

Every fan of the DCC system I've read/heard makes it sound like there's something special about it that makes the play experience awesome. But I am just not feeling it. What awesomeness we've been having here is thanks to us, GM and players. And I'm noticing rule elements which seem, IMHO, to get in the way of it. I could also have mentioned the Initiative system, which format I don't like and which really doesn't fit the PbP medium.

Well I think the change in how the funnel goes fits primarily because it's in a PbP situation. Group initiative is a pain and keeping a solid player base at times can be a real pain but with this method I don't have to sweat who comes and goes I can just keep it moving. I am glad to hear you have at least enjoyed yourself, while I don't agree with your disgust with the system as a whole I respect that certainly. As you'll find in my big response i'm starting to type out I am not against customizations that the group as a whole prefers if that is what is wanted. Since I haven't heard anyone else complain I have taken it as an outlier but if I am wrong on that please let me know. This is a game for all of us to enjoy.

so if that doesnt change please dont feel.that I will be greatly upset because you want to leave etc..

Dude, I don't just pick up and leave PbP games I'm a player in. I'm still in campaigns who went thru moments of near-collapse. My personal issues with the *system* we're using here doesn't even remotely compare to those.

Hmmm...unless "dont feel.that I will be greatly upset because you want to leave" is code for "I wish ya'd just leave, goodbye and good riddance!"

Lol If I really wanted you gone i'd make that happens. Not at all I just more wanted that to be known across the board not only to you but the entire party as a whole. We have discussed before how you are with campaigns and I most certainly respect your loyalty. I wish I could say I am as loyal but I always over involve myself and then have to cut myself back again. You are a welcome member sir, now to get back to arguing that DCC isn't so bad.

BTW on a side note what about initiative don't you like it's standard D20 really. The group init doesn't work in PbP but it makes sense in a FTF game I think.

[Vargr1105]

BTW on a side note what about initiative don't you like it's standard D20 really. The group init doesn't work in PbP but it makes sense in a FTF game I think.

Quite the contrary. My empirical experience with it tells me the AD&D-style Group Initiative, with the segment modifiers that are an integral part of it, is the best initiative system out there for PbP. It's the one I use in the 3 campaigns I'm running. And I wasn't even familiar with it until I started playing OSRIC here.

"Standard D20" is precisely what I do not like about DCC Initiative. I haven't been too keen on D20 initiative ever since I sat down to play 3.5 at conventions. I don't like:


- That you are stuck with your Initiative rank throughout combat, and miss the initiative tide turns that do happen in AD&D/OSRIC (*)

- That smart allecks with high DEX and the right combo of Feats and whatnot could almost always go first. (this isn't an issue in DCC AFAIK)

- That you have to wait until after Ralph, Bob, Charlie and Steve say what they want to do *and* do it, roll for it, etc before you have a go if your Initiative is crap. In some tabletop games I was at this was rather boring, waiting for long minutes till my go to the point I forgot what was I originally intended to do

- That when you go first, you have to base your battle decisions upon a static environment where nothing has really happened yet; while others, friends and foes, get to react to what has happened and make decisions based on the flow of battle. This kind of defeats the whole purpose of acting first (**)

- That initiative ties are so few and far between, denying the possibility of a whole gamut of cool events (mutual slayings, spell interrupts, etc)

- That the Initiative system makes no allowance for *what* you're trying to do affecting your go, there's no weapon speeds or lengths, casting times, segment mods, etc or actions carrying into the next round because the segment count went above 10

- The whole artificial "Free Action/Half-Action/Full Round Action" thing they came up to deal with the absence of what I mentioned on the previous entry. It made me feel I was playing some form of over-elaborate chess sometimes, rather than imagining a battle. (this isn't present in DCC AFAIK)

- That the best plans of mice and men (and monsters) turning to naught can't happen. In D20 Initiative when it's your turn, you declare and you act. There is no danger of declaring you are doing something that turns out to be impossible as Initiative plays out. The way things sometimes play out due to AD&D-style Initiative alone does really feel like the chaos of battle or skirmish, not a tactical miniature game.

And about D20 Initiative in PbP in particular:

- I don't like how the "Ralph, Bob, Charlie and Steve then Me" syndrome means one has to keep an eye on the thread until Steve does his thing; rather than just declaring "here's what I do on Round 2" after Round 1 is over and let Initiative deal with it afterwards. I have noticed that in PbP games with D20 style Inititiative GMs often have to poke a player with a "hey, it's your turn".


(*) as you can imagine, for precisely the same reason I don't like Initiative systems based upon a static value with no randomness whatsoever, like that of Call of Cthulhu and Stormbringer/Elric!

(**) some systems deal with this by having declaration of action start at worse initiative and then resolution in order of initiative. I feel it is inelegant and not that practical at the table, but it is still better than D20.

[AQuebman]

Ok, please do read all I wrote with a hefty chunk of salt, due to my usual ironic manner. I don't want to offend or madden anyone, and I am not pissed, screaming or jumping up and down on my chair as I type.

Your a snarky smartass at times Vargr it's okay i'll tell the nurses at the old folks home to up your medicines and change your bed pan more often. . Let me start by saying I have never felt like DCC was doing something majorly different. They were making a game focused on Appendix N but using simplistic D20 mechanics and some rarely used mechanics based clearly out of other games. It's got a lot of randomness if that's not something you enjoy in your games you will not enjoy DCC without heavy mods./dialog]

You also unlike being a demihuman had a choice of what class to go into and with those drawbacks known went into warrior.

Actually, I didn't. If you remember I decided to make Goratrix into a warrior before having the write-up available. I did this because he doesn't excel in any ability score that is associated with any D20 classes, and because Fighters (to my experience) are always the simplest class in D20 games and I didn't want to have to bother learning magic rules, etc.

It never crossed my mind that one of the main abilities that defines the Fighter class would be dependent on Luck. I was expecting STR, AGI maybe even STA...but LUK? Give me a break...

To be fair you could have said something to me if you wanted to know more about the classes. It's my fault for not having them all posted by now and I do apologize for that but i've always been very up front and quick to answer questions if they come up. That and warriors ARE simple even in DCC. All of those stats do matter LUCK just provides another avenue a warrior could be built around a high luck guy with lower other stats would then have the benefit you are not receiving. It's more balanced by having it varied I feel rather than being a broken thing. It's a small possible boost to one weapon it does not break the class as a whole. I don't feel the stats are as incredibly important as they are in other editions. You have a higher chance of rolling a luck that provides nothing or a negative I think as I mentioned above it's there to provide a variety of different fighter types.

You have the benefit of being a hearty 16 Stamina warrior you just happened to have a low luck.

That is not the issue and it does not answer my question on why Weapon of Choice comes down to sheer dumb luck, or the logic behind it...which still eludes me. And for the record, Goratrix does not have "low luck" he has *shit low* Luck.

And STA is irrelevant to this issue, Goratrix could have become A Wizard or Priest or whatever and he would still have a hearty 16 stamina. What he would not have is his fighting ability shafted because some game designer on a brain fart decided the ability for a professional warrior to fight with his favorite weapon comes ultimately down sheer dumb luck.

Stamina also plays into fortitude which warriors will end up with better saves in that area as well so there's an added benefit beyond picking any class. I think your getting overly wrapped up in a mechanics name, I don't care if you don't want to roleplay your negative to a weapon you can say your preferred weapon is something else or you can say you gave it up because you were awful at it. It's not shafting your fighting ability at all you still get the deed die and the very powerful and way cool mighty deeds. So you get a -2 to lets say hammers, that's in no way going to cripple Goratrix or make him an awful fighter. Explanations can be done a thousand different ways and I leave that to you as the player who is building the character over time to explain or not explain. Goratrix is an unlucky SOB doesn't mean he's broken just means he has a weak area.

Not all birth signs should be positive

And were did I say otherwise? The issue is, if they shaft you, why do they have positive names then? Would it have really been *that* hard to make a dual list of titles expressing what birthsigns do according to the LUK? i.e.: Fox Cunning / Mechanically Impaired; Eyes of the Eagle / Blind as a Bat ?

Again it's just a name. If you want to take the table and give bad names to go along with the good go for it. I'll post it on the DCC forums and gladly give you credit for it. I think this is another imagine it how you wish scenario instead of being caught up in the initial name given by Joseph Goodman. The game is intended for veteran DM's and is encouraged to be customized and i'm not against that at all. Anyways your augur makes a small difference good, bad, or neutral and in many cases has little to no effect long term. Occasionally it ends up being something that has a stronger effect but it's still not ground breaking.

just like not all warriors are great with all weapons.

And where did I say all warriors should be great with all weapons? What I want to know is why a warrior with low LUK just happens to be magically worse than a non-warrior with a specific weapon, which is supposedly (given the title of the ability) his favorite one? And why it stays that way *forever* even when you increase LUK and its modifier?

If the group as a whole is up for a change to this warrior ability to make it a static +1 if your luck is below that i'd be okay with that as long as we kept luck working as expected in all other manners for fumbles etc... I agree it feels weird that the favored weapon has a negative I am more arguing above that one bad score isn't going to kill you even if we play it RaW.

If your worried about it mechanically pick a weapon you don't want to use and forget about it.

Wait, you honestly assumed I am so dumb to not have decided to do that already?

And of course we'll forget about it. We'll forget that Goratrix just has to discard a class feature due to crappy game design. I mean, what can we do about, right? It's on the book. It ain't like we can (gasp!) house-rule to sort out the fuck-ups of the designers, can we? Nope. If it's on the book, it's on the book. "Magister Dixit" and all that.

I am not Magister Dixit lol I just don't like having to remember 10000 things but as I stated above i'm open to majority decided house rules.

I think what Rag's is trying to say is that you have an opportunity to roleplay around a detriment just like you can roleplay around how hearty and tough you are as well.

And what if I *don't* want to roleplay around a detriment I had no choice about in the first place? And when did things that are imposed by nonsensical rules suddenly turned into "opportunities"?

And yeah...I did role-play the snot out of how hearty and though Goratrix was didn't I? With his massive 16 STA, and his minimum possible rolled Hit Points. Why, the dude's was veritable tank I tells ya! It truly be a good thing that I randomly aced my random 1d12 roll and now it doesn't seem like Goratrix will die as soon as someone touches him with a stick...why, if I had rolled a "1" your entire argument about "hearty and tough" Goratrix would fall flat on its face.

Wait...it falls flat on its face anyway. because the reason Goratrix is "hearty and tough" *now* is that I choose to play a HD 1d12 Fighter and got really lucky with one die roll...his STA really doesn't figure into it more than one sixth.

I think all characters are worthy of good roleplaying no matter whether your stats rock or your stats suck. I know your a good enough RP'er Vargr to play a character who has a gimp of some sort I understand not wanting to feel jipped but I think you will do well with Goratrix no matter how we decide to rule the favored weapon.

As a whole warriors still have a lot of power.

That is awesome! Now can I please play a warrior with lot of power that isn't shafted by rules with no logical explanation?

See my above comments we can vote as a group what we want. If you have any other house rules to propose lets hear them and we can put them to a vote. That being said I can't promise there won't be fuck ups on my part my memory is shoddy at best.

The Deed Die alone provides a much greater chance of hitting/damaging a monster along with allowing you to do great feats just with a high enough roll and some imagination.

Just like AD&D called shots, right? Sounds wicked! Now can I please do all that *and* have a warrior who isn't crap with his Weapon of Choice?

Mighty Deeds allow for a lot more then called shots it pretty much takes the place of every feat in 3.0/4.0 for warriors and allows warriors to vary a lot from being like a barbarian to being monk like if that's how you choose to play it. It gives you the opportunity to swing from a chandelier and kick a demon off a cliff if you make the roll. Also it could be broken, that's my job to make sure it's not or that it's handled within reason.

They also crit often and overall have much more freedom then I have found in past systems.

Oh, you mean exactly like 3E has done for 13 years? Well, that sounds cool. Now...if only Goratrix had the freedom *not* to be crap with is Weapon of Choice...

No because 3.0/3.5/pathfinder any character could get those feats and you had to meet hard to reach ability scores in a lot of cases so not every warrior had those. Every warrior in this gets this boon and it's a very nice one I might add but it's clearly different then 3.0.

Unfortunately yes your base luck is abysmal and you will face that hardship but it's not all terrible and frankly I think adds a lot of character.

Now you've lost me. Please explain how being randomly shitty with one weapon "adds a lot of character".

What is this fetish I see that keeps equating random PC flaws with "character" and "opportunity". Does this mean PCs who are very good at something, or a lot of things, lack "character" altogether?

See my above comments, you can roleplay good and bad I will say I am not running a campaign where everyones a super hero so you'll have weaknesses try to roleplay them. As far as the weapon of choice thing that does feel a bit awkward and many of the forum goes on the DCC forums agree so i'm okay with that being house ruled differently.

Not all warriors will be the same, not even close.

Yeah. Apparently on DCC it all comes to sheer dumb luck from beginning to end starting with the should-have-long-been-dead dinosaur of "roll 3d6 in order". So much for player ability, meaningful choice and all that.

3d6 in order is provided as a suggestion. I like it because I like characters feeling real and vulnerable, with the roll the body role and having heals DCC characters are a lot harder to take down then it seems. Yes you could end up on the low end of the spectrum but as i'll list below there are ways to quest your way through your weaknesses or at least die tying.

Lastly DCC is built off of the idea that if you want X then quest for it. If raising your starting character's overall luck is your drive with this character then I can implement that into your future ventures.

Ahem...

You wrote, and I quote: "there isn't a system of gaining ability scores or anything like that"

You also confirmed that any future LUK increase will NOT remove Goratrix's penalty with Weapon for Choice.

So please elaborate on why I'd "quest" to increase LUK when there's no hard-and-fast system for it (just GM whim) and when it will not sort the issue at all.

"Here...make a quest to gain this reward which will not help at all sort your problem."

Seriously?

I wrote that to indicate that unlike games like Pathfinder there isn't a at X level you gain +1 to your ability scores. I never said I wouldn't allow a quest or something of the like to change a flaw or provide a boon to a character that they never had before. The book very clearly declares itself as guidelines that can be broken and if you peruse the DCC forums it's very much about questing for what you want obviously built within roleplaying etc.. It's not a hard fast rule it's up to me to judge this sort of quest and it may or may not work out the way you hope but the opportunities are there and my job to provide the opportunity no matter how perilous. DCC is meant to be whacky and crazy it's not built around steadfast rules and that's beautiful to me I like dranged and chaotic.

That goes to everyone this is your game i'm just telling it and adjudicating by the rules.

I though GM stood for "Game Master" and not "Rules Adjudicator"? You know, the guy that can actually make his own rules and rulings?

I can and I will make rules and rulings and I think I have proven that within the game. That being said this is generally a democratic game and I like to let my players decide how we progress and move forward. I'm just providing the world and the opposition everything else is decide by the cause and effect of player actions. Again i'm open to house rules lets put them up to a vote i'll put up the change to the 1 warrior ability if that is something you would like.

I hope Vargr you can see the diversity and mix of good and bad that rag and I appreciate so much with the system.

Oh I can certainly see it, and all the fetishist levels of chaotic randomness that go along with it. But I don't appreciate it much; especially the features that don't seem to make any sense.

You know, I enjoy some randomness in my RPG as much as the next guy, but it has to have two caveats:

a) make sense

b) not saddle folks with crappy bellow-average characters


Neither premisses (a), nor (b) are provided by the DCC system.

(And no, before someone goes knee-jerk on me, I am not saying Goratrix is a crappy bellow-average PC. Just that 3d6 in order will get you that more often than not)

I like that system and I like the chaotic randomness that's beautiful and fun to me but if we want to change how characters are rolled up in the future we can do that too.

Who knows your next character might have 18 luck but crap physical scores, it's all up to the dice.

Indeed, and that is just adding insult to injury. Because if Goratrix had crappy physical scores and 18 LUK he'd still likely be a better Fighter with his weapon of choice than he is now.

Again...bad game design.

I disagree i've seen warriors of all shades of ability scores and they are fun and kick ass in all the different varieties. The negative luck for favored weapon can feel funky so i'd be up to a change with that but I don't think that indicates an overall bad system or anything like that.

Also I played a character with no legs being wheeled around in a little red pull wagon and he was awesome!

Good for you! Awesome! And you know what? If you were playing Goratrix, or any of the other PCs you could voluntarily chop his legs off and have fun to your heart's content role-playing him being pulled around on a little red wagon too.

But Goratrix's "I fight worse with my Weapon of Choice" is not a choice. It is a rule mechanics imposition, and one that doesn't make a lick of sense. Just because folks might think it is awesome, please don't call an imposition an "opportunity". An opportunity presupposes a thing called *choice*.

I cannot *choose* to play a Goratrix who isn't shite with his Weapon of Choice the same way you can choose to maul your character (or design it from the get-go to be that way). So please do not use that as an argument. You enjoy playing cripples? Great! I do not. (and no, before any of you gets all knee-jerk on me, I am not saying Goratrix is a crippled character).

Now, why have I written all this? I don't give a toss about Goratrix, I don't care if he lives or dies. If he buys the bucket I'll just roll a new one, It will most likely be turd, mechanically worse than ol'Goratrix and die horribly too to be replaced by a new turd, etc, etc until I am lucky enough to beat the odds and roll one of those awful PCs who doesn't have any "opportunities for roleplay".

Or...Goratrix will keep on living and dungeonin' and I'll keep running him.


But you see, I jumped on the bandwagon to play DCC because I was curious about what was being bandied as "the new bestest weirdest game in town" and that (allegedly) really "went back to the roots"; so my playing has also been an ongoing personal review of sorts. And so far I have seen nothing in the play experience that couldn't be done (and hasn't been done already) with good ol' AD&D, and the new gimmicks that are presented have been...well, crap honestly (and don't even get me started on things that have not come into play yet, like halflings and Luck, or how the Mighty Deeds of Arms system is ripe open for abuse and making the GM life hell).

DCC just doesn't seem nearly as good as the folks at Spellburn are gushing. Listening to them you'd half expect this to be the Second Coming of FRPG.

With nearly 40 years of game design behind it, DCC is turning out not to live to expectations, for me at least. I have seen no reasons thus far to exchange OSRIC for it and invest in packs on weird Zochhi dice.

In fact, I am beginning to think DCC modules could be more enjoyable if you'd just run them using AD&D or OSRIC or LL or whatever. The art, the attitude, and the ideas behind the modules are great...but AFAIK so far it's a shame they are saddled to DCC.

It's really personal preference. I don't gush as much as the spellburn guys do about things but I do overall by the book greatly enjoy the system but I can understand that you don't and respect that. You seem to like a more structured game with less random that's probably not DCC by the book.

And last but not least, one peculiarly irritating (to me) feature of DCC, although it is hardly the only FRPG at fault in this matter, is that it uses game mechanics which are as old as a comfortable old shoe your grandfather used to wear, and claims they are innovative.
Dictatorial "thou SHALL roll 3d6 in order"? Done before. Character funnels? Done before. 0th-level characters? Done before. Choose your class later? Done before. Mighty Deeds? Done before. Corrupting Magic? Done before. Personalized visual/auditory spell effects? Done before. Race-as-Class? Done before. No multiclassing? Done before. Karma systems by spending "Luck"? Done before.


I am still not "getting it" on what DCC has that supposedly makes it so awesome as advertised compared to what was already available. This system better start surprising me positively in the future, and soon.

See my very first post I feel this is a re-imagining of previously done things done with some Lovecraftian craziness and simpler rules for us dummies who didn't grow up memorizing original D&D rules.

[AQuebman]

BTW on a side note what about initiative don't you like it's standard D20 really. The group init doesn't work in PbP but it makes sense in a FTF game I think.

Quite the contrary. My empirical experience with it tells me the AD&D-style Group Initiative, with the segment modifiers that are an integral part of it, is the best initiative system out there for PbP. It's the one I use in the 3 campaigns I'm running. And I wasn't even familiar with it until I started playing OSRIC here.

Group initiative feels messy to me because everything is all on top of itself and it becomes harder for me to adjudicate things. This is likely a difference overall of growing up using the d20 style of initiative since AD&D on through 3.5 and pathfinder and never playing old systems.

"Standard D20" is precisely what I do not like about DCC Initiative. I haven't been too keen on D20 initiative ever since I sat down to play 3.5 at conventions. I don't like:

- That you are stuck with your Initiative rank throughout combat, and miss the initiative tide turns that do happen in AD&D/OSRIC (*)

A good group with a solid DM keeps it flowing well PbP is inherently slow so I don't think this becomes as much of a problem.

- That you have to wait until after Ralph, Bob, Charlie and Steve say what they want to do *and* do it, roll for it, etc before you have a go if your Initiative is crap. In some tabletop games I was at this was rather boring, waiting for long minutes till my go to the point I forgot what was I originally intended to do

Again this is fixed with a DM pushing the action along initiative rolls fast with a well GM'd game generally and if everyone is invested folks are paying attention.

- That when you go first, you have to base your battle decisions upon a static environment where nothing has really happened yet; while others, friends and foes, get to react to what has happened and make decisions based on the flow of battle. This kind of defeats the whole purpose of acting first (**)

Being a step ahead and reacting first has never bothered me. It always made sense ni my head but I respect your dissonance.

- That initiative ties are so few and far between, denying the possibility of a whole gamut of cool events (mutual slayings, spell interrupts, etc)

Totally agree on this front and i've seen DM's houserule that they allow initiative ties. I have thought about this but it seems easier to just stick with traditional D20 I have enough to figure out lol.

- That the Initiative system makes no allowance for *what* you're trying to do affecting your go, there's no weapon speeds or lengths, casting times, segment mods, etc or actions carrying into the next round because the segment count went above 10

See I find all of the added junk in previous games adds to the confusion there's just too much crap going on. Granted I never grew up playing in games with this system but it feels like too much rules crunchiness for my tastes.

- That the best plans of mice and men (and monsters) turning to naught can't happen. In D20 Initiative when it's your turn, you declare and you act. There is no danger of declaring you are doing something that turns out to be impossible as Initiative plays out. The way things sometimes play out due to AD&D-style Initiative alone does really feel like the chaos of battle or skirmish, not a tactical miniature game.

This still happens to a certain extent. I can name countless pathfinder games i've played where a monster or another player takes a turn and totally borks my chance to do something or reach a point I was shooting for.

And about D20 Initiative in PbP in particular:

- I don't like how the "Ralph, Bob, Charlie and Steve then Me" syndrome means one has to keep an eye on the thread until Steve does his thing; rather than just declaring "here's what I do on Round 2" after Round 1 is over and let Initiative deal with it afterwards. I have noticed that in PbP games with D20 style Inititiative GMs often have to poke a player with a "hey, it's your turn".

Feel free to declare what round your talking about and giving me some actions then I only have to stop if that action isn't possible. Im okay with pre-posting if that's something you like to do.