Quote from: Benoist;462856Rules changes by DM fiat are to me a given. That's not to be dismissed: that's just a reality. So just going "oh my god stats HAVE TO be rolled in order" is kinda lame in terms of criticism, to me. Of course they don't 'have to'.

I'm simply commenting on the rules as written, and the way in which they are intended to shape and determine the way the game is played.

Consequently, I don't think commenting on the 'rules as written' is 'lame'.  

Sure, a DM can change anything in any game.  But does this mean that there is no point on commenting on the rules that actually are included in the text?  That seems like a very strange position to hold.  

(E.g., a Keeper in a CoC game could certainly ignore CoC's sanity rules, but surely it is legitimate to consider CoC's sanity rules when judging the rules of CoC overall?)
 

Quote from: Benoist;462856As for "old school" being rules light and free wheeling, in some corners of the hobby sure, that's very much the case, and I like these kinds of games very, very much, but since I consider games like AD&D and Role Master to be very much "old school" as well, that doesn't quite match my own definition of the term.

Is this comment directed at me? :confused:  As an old Rolemaster fan, I don't disagree with you.

Quote from: Benoist;462856I'm fine with a guy having a particular view of what his game ought to be - this is something I welcome, actually, because then as a GM I know what the game is and is not, and whatever purposes it'll best serve at my game table.

Um, "I'm fine with a guy having a particular view of what his game ought to be" as well.  All the more power to Goodman!

I'm just saying that what Goodman thinks his game "ought to be" isn't what I want in a game.  (Or so I think -- I haven't read the rules carefully.)

(From skimming the open beta document).

If I didn't know this was a "serious game", I would have wondered whether this game was actually a parody (or spoof) of 1E AD&D, trying to pass itself off as a "serious game" in a manner similar to the Sokal hoax.

I don't get the issue with the wonky dice. It's not as if the game presupposes you to buy Zocchi dice. In fact there's a whole side bar early on in the book which explains how to get round it. And I'd be surprised if no one here wouldn't have hit upon that idea on his own anyway. E.g. for d7 roll d8 and reroll 8s.

The other thing I'm a bit surprised about is how this game is faulted for having an attitude, when one of the major beefs some people have with most retroclones is how they are bare mechanics with little else besides. E.g. check this vid from 10:30 to 11:40.

It's very clear to me how DCC's style, visually and textually, borrows quite a bit from Hackmaster. So are we going to have that old "But that's not how I ever played D&D back then!' wave of indignation again? Apparently so.

I doubt I'll play this game, when I haven't had time to explore Dragon Warriors and S&W Whitebox yet, but it's not as if this game offends me for trying to be different and original. I do predict, however, that several players in the OSR scene will take issue with it, and perceive it as an infringement on their proprietary rights of being the torch bearers for 'how it was back then'. In depth dissections of the game's many 'historic shortcomings' and 'quixotic misunderstandings' are probably in the works already.

Quote from: Akrasia;462857I'm simply commenting on the rules as written, and the way in which they are intended to shape and determine the way the game is played.

Consequently, I don't think commenting on the 'rules as written' is 'lame'.

Well, we're touching on another subject really, but yes, I do think more and more that bitching about rules as written is lame.  

Basically, the Oberoni or Rule 0 Fallacy is total bullshit, because a rules system has no value beyond the game table that employs it.

Quote from: Akrasia;462857Sure, a DM can change anything in any game.  But does this mean that there is no point on commenting on the rules that actually are included in the text?  That seems like a very strange position to hold.

Not at all. It's a position that values actual play before the text of the rules, and acknowledges the fact that not all changes are equal: some rules changes are easy to make and a matter of deciding "ok, we're going to distribute X points between stats instead of rolling them", whereas other changes will necessitate so much work as to make it more trouble than it's worth, where another game might just do it best (changing all the rules of magic in the DCC RPG might fit in that category).

Quote from: Akrasia;462857(E.g., a Keeper in a CoC game could certainly ignore CoC's sanity rules, but surely it is legitimate to consider CoC's sanity rules when judging the rules of CoC overall?)

Yes, but so would be the position that just axing the Sanity rules from the game creates this, this or that consequences, and that playing the game this way could create this specific game experience you might be searching for instead. Now that said, not all changes are equal: some of them will necessitate so much work as to just not be worth the time when compared to simply using some other game that already does it for you for the same results (i.e. using BRP rules sans Sanity instead of Call of Cthulhu).

Quote from: Akrasia;462857Is this comment directed at me? :confused:  As an old Rolemaster fan, I don't disagree with you.

Nah, it wasn't. It was directed at Anthony above.

Quote from: Akrasia;462857Um, "I'm fine with a guy having a particular view of what his game ought to be" as well.  All the more power to Goodman!

I'm just saying that what Goodman thinks his game "ought to be" isn't what I want in a game.  (Or so I think -- I haven't read the rules carefully.)

That's fine by me. Just stating that a game with a particular focus, whether I like it or not, is better than no focus at all, to me at least. *cough* hence the reason I would rate AD&D2 as a worse game system than 4E D&D, btw *cough*

I might actually pick up this DCC core rulebook after all, just to get a good chuckle out of the "in your face" machismo and hubris of the writing style and design.

:rolleyes:

Quote from: Benoist;462861Well, we're touching on another subject really, but yes, I do think more and more that bitching about rules as written is lame.

I'm not sure why you feel the need to describe criticisms of rules as 'bitching' or 'lame'. Why the anger and snark?

And why shouldn't people be free to express their impressions, positive or negative, of what is written in the rules book for the game in question?  I don't understand why you think such views are illegitimate.

:confused:

Quote from: Benoist;462861...
Not at all. It's a position that values actual play before the text of the rules, and acknowledges the fact that not all changes are equal: some rules changes are easy to make and a matter of deciding "ok, we're going to distribute X points between stats instead of rolling them", whereas other changes will necessitate so much work as to make it more trouble than it's worth, where another game might just do it best (changing all the rules of magic in the DCC RPG might fit in that category)...

Sure, some rules changes are more weighty than others.

But I still don't see why critically evaluating the rules that are written down is illegitimate simply because the GM can modify or ignore any of those rules (with varying amounts of difficulty).
:idunno:

Quote from: Akrasia;462864I'm not sure why you feel the need to describe criticisms of rules as 'bitching' or 'lame'. Why the anger and snark?

And why shouldn't people be free to express their impressions, positive or negative, of what is written in the rules book for the game in question?  I don't understand why you think such views are illegitimate.

:confused:

We've got no problem here, mate. We're just talking! I'm not angry or whatever. Just used the comments as a springboard to make comments of my own is all.

Now, one reason why I pointed out the Rules 0 Fallacy as some piece of internet bullshit is not because I think you, particularly, are a great offender and I should chastize you for it (sorry if it felt that way). It's just that I feel this sort of complete theoretical crap (let's talk about the RAW and nothing but the RAW) is part of the problem, and not the solution, when it comes to discussing about games, what we do with them, and how we might employ them to get the exact game experiences we are searching for.

Notice that my position above is not 'either/or' or 'one or the other'. I do think that discussing about what's actually written in a game is valuable to understand what kind of purpose the game has and how you might employ it from there, but at the same time I despise the Rule 0 Fallacy because it basically states that actual game experience, with all it implies of tweaks and ipso facto house rules, just do not matter when it comes to discussing rules in action. And that leads directly to the current gaming culture that states that 'the rules are the game, the game is the rules', that there's nothing of value beyond what the book states, that gaming is about playing by RAW, and gaming the rules as a mini-game in and of itself, etc etc, ad nauseam, bis repetita.

That's what I have in mind behind all this.

Quote from: Akrasia;462864Sure, some rules changes are more weighty than others.

But I still don't see why critically evaluating the rules that are written down is illegitimate simply because the GM can modify or ignore any of those rules (with varying amounts of difficulty).
:idunno:

I didn't say this is illegitimate. I said it was "kinda lame", and further posited that answering that you can easily house rule the system to do whatever you want it to do with a minimum of trouble is just as legitimate a position.

Well the art is relatively attractive and sets a very consistent tone.

Although I find it kind of funny, comparing the procedures and tone of this game with Gygax's own house-rules for OD&D that he came up with later in life.  Pretty stark contrast - Gygax's own procedures were much more forgiving for starting characters.

At the very least this could be fun just for shits & giggles if you want to do a crazy 0-level Fantasy Fucking Vietnam session leading up to something else, but overall it's not my bag.

Shit, as far as throwaway characters go, ALL characters were like that back in day. I have no problem rolling random stats and taking what you get.

Creating 4 at a time seems pointless though. There is no guarantee that any of them will survive so why bother. Roll up your character, buy equipment and just fucking play. If the character dies then repeat the process.

Quote from: Benoist;462865... And that leads directly to the current gaming culture that states that 'the rules are the game, the game is the rules', that there's nothing of value beyond what the book states, that gaming is about playing by RAW, and gaming the rules as a mini-game in and of itself, etc etc, ad nauseam, bis repetita.

Well, I'm certainly not part of that gaming culture!  (Otherwise I would've never written these.)

I do think that the RAW of a RPG is an important starting point for judging a game, however, as well as providing a 'common vocabulary' for gamers belonging to different groups.

Quote from: Benoist;462865... that you can easily house rule the system to do whatever you want it to do with a minimum of trouble is just as legitimate a position.

Okay, but given the plethora of RPGs now available -- including many 'old school' RPGs -- I'm inclined simply to pick another system to play rather than modify the DCC RPG into something I'd be happy with.

But maybe after a more careful read I'll reconsider my view of DCC RPG.

I didn't mean to imply you, particularly, were part of that culture either, mate. Relax!

Quote from: Benoist;462881I didn't mean to imply you, particularly, were part of that culture either, mate. Relax!

Sure, no worries. :cool:

Quote from: Akrasia;462886Sure, no worries. :cool:

Awesome.

I love the art. A few pieces are near copies of old D&D art, and some are just turnarounds (like the play on Emerikol).

I don't like all the spells having their own tables. It feels like it would slow down a game a lot.

I also don't like the funky dice. It'll just annoy people for no good reason.

Not sure about race as class. I generally don't care for it, though.

Is the game really going to be limited level 5, or is there going to be an "Expert" set later?

Beta isn't the full set.  The full set will go to level 10.