Long-Term DCC Play

[dstack]

So his might be a tough question to answer, given DCC is barely out yet... In any case, one comment I've seen in a lot of blogs is a thought that DCC might not be suitable for long-term play. I wasn't involved with the playtest so I myself lack the context on this. But I am curious what others think or have experienced in this regard. How does the game change at higher levels? Does it break down at a certain point? Is experience gained at a reasonable rate?

[Coleston the Cavalier]

This is just my opinion from playing DCC RPG (not straight thru to high levels 5+) but some gaming at that level.

The does not break down at those levels. Since levels 5+ are considered high or even epic levels, the mechanics still work just fine. The bonuses, attributes, hit points, etc. are not inflated in DCC RPG. Indeed, many of the same monsters that were tough and deadly at level 2 are still that way at level 6.

Many gamers are just used to levels going much higher and having to face more and more epic monsters to challenge them. Gary Gygax and I had a conversation prioir to his death I think speaks to many who suggest DCC RPG is not useful for long-term campaigns.

Gary was working on a level system to use with his Lejendary Adventures game (which has no levels) and I was one of just a few people willing to help him do it. In the process, I asked him why levels are so important to many gamers. He responded, "People like to take their characters from diapers to godhood."

I think a lot of the criticism towards DCC RPG not being suitable for long campaigns comes from folks who hear that character classes only go to level 10, and they then assume they won't be able to take their character to godhood. However, godhood in DCC RPG is level 10.

[Raven_Crowking]

As one who has considered problems with long-term campaigns in DCC RPG (from the Beta), I am not basing this on the levels, but on the adventure pattern implied by the books (which seems to support episodic play as written).

One of the concerns I had is how the megadungeon model works with the system as written. The megadungeon has the advantage of having a play area that is automatically known to the players, with motive to explore built in, and which is reusable (thus reducing GM prep).

The more I delve into the final book, and the more I test what I had considered obstacles, the less valid I think those concerns are. I think that this game would work well with a sprawling exotic city, a vast megadungeon beneath, and other plots and story opportunities arising as they are developed by the GM (or purchased as modules).

In fact, that is the model I am strongly considering for a Toronto-based game.

[dunbruha]

I'm wondering how the "quest" mechanism will work in long-term campaigns. There are a lot of mentions of quests in the book: cleric quests for a sacrifice or to remove disapproval, wizard quests to invoke patrons, quests for rare spell components, etc. Many things that one or more members of the party may need to do over the course of a long campaign are resolved through a quest: heal diseases, remove curses, etc. Individually, each quest sounds cool. But how many quests can a party take on? It seems like this might end up overwhelming the campaign: "Sorry, we can't help you defeat the werewolves--we have to go find the Oldest Crone, and then we need to locate a long-lost vessel of healing, and then we have to joust with Death himself." Not that this couldn't be a fun campaign , but it seems like a lot of things that are "routinely" taken care of in other game systems are very challenging in DCC, and multiple quests might conflict with long-term goals of the judge. Has this come up in anyone's campaigns? What experience does anyone have with this?

[GnomeBoy]

...it seems like a lot of things that are "routinely" taken care of in other game systems are very challenging in DCC, and multiple quests might conflict with long-term goals of the judge. Has this come up in anyone's campaigns? What experience does anyone have with this?

Of course, the quests don't have to be grueling full-blown adventures of their own. They could exist to motivate the characters to get from A to B, and once there they encounter the "next adventure".

For some reason, Spock at the beginning of ST:TMP springs to mind. Clearly, he'd been on a quest to purge himself of his human emotions. But we didn't see anything of him deciding that, getting there, going through whatever he went through -- we just saw him dropping out. Some things can happen '"off screen", but they still inform what happens next...

[Ravenheart87]

I suppose most people aren't complaining about the levels when they say DCC isn't good for long-term campaign, but the huge number of game mechanics that can cripple the character - criticals, corruptions, and so on. The latter has been toned down since the beta, and you also get a few good advice in the book how to handle death and the return from afterlife, so it's not really a big issue as it seems.

[finarvyn]

I've been playing DCC for over a year now and have no real issues with long-term play, but I have focused on smaller episode adventures much like my favorite Appendix N source material. (Conan, Elric, F&GM, and others were short stories.)

But I don't see where such a game system wouldn't support a long-term campaign quest. After all, isn't a quest essentially a series of episodes all with one over-riding plot thread?

Not an issue, says I.

[Vanguard]

I'm not sure I understand this complaint. Is it because there is a real chance of death in a campaign? Nobody likes losing a character to a bad dice roll, but if there is no risk then why even bother? Sometimes you succeed and sometimes you fail.

More importantly, how is finishing a campaign any different than death? In either case, the game stops. Whether you persevere or perish, the important thing is that you'll be talking about your character after the game ends. And if there was never any risk, what's there to talk about?

[Raven_Crowking]

I'm not sure I understand this complaint. Is it because there is a real chance of death in a campaign? Nobody likes losing a character to a bad dice roll, but if there is no risk then why even bother? Sometimes you succeed and sometimes you fail.

More importantly, how is finishing a campaign any different than death? In either case, the game stops. Whether you persevere or perish, the important thing is that you'll be talking about your character after the game ends. And if there was never any risk, what's there to talk about?

It has nothing to do with death, or negative effects at all. The only question is, "How well does this game support the incorporation of persistent elements in the creation of a game milieu?"

Obviously, creature types are a persistent element in most games, and I would actually recommend following a combination of persistent creatures and new ones in world creation. Lots of settings & novels use giant spiders, for example, or skeletons, but there can be enough variation that one is never certain just what sort of skeleton or giant spider one is facing.

Usually, if one considers the unit of play to be the encounter, as opposed to areas of the setting, one ends up creating a system that is ultimately damaging to persistent sandbox play. This was certainly the case in 3e and 4e, where focus on the encounter became de facto focus on linear play.

These are both factors I was concerned with in regards to DCC. I am happy to say that I no longer believe that they are valid concerns. A few non-linear, setting-based modules (like B2, or T1, for example) would go a long way toward showing how DCC can handle this playstyle for people who are still experiencing concerns.


RC

[Karaptis]

Did Conan take part in a campaign or did he do a series of adventures which made him into a king? I guess it depends on the player. Mine don't want to change the world(myself included) we just like to kill and loot and maybe talk to (harass) some NPCs, build a stronghold etc. We are refreshingly shallow.

[goodmangames]

Just out of curiosity...what's the longest campaign that any of you had back in the 70's/80's? And what happened to the characters?

My early experiences with D&D campaigns using the OD&D rules were that it took many sessions just to get the campaign started, because level 1 characters kept dying. Finally, a party would mostly survive a dungeon, and then somebody would make it to level 2, and then maybe another PC would also level up, and something would get rolling. And then usually summer break ended and you were out of luck. Even when your campaign did get some momentum, you often ended up with a party of mixed levels -- the game was genuinely challenging, and poor decisions on the part of the players had a toll (character death!).

In my mind, DCC RPG has a campaign element that is closer to what OD&D offers. It's definitely dangerous and certainly not as predictable as 4E or 3.5. It's a different style of campaign play than what some gamers may be used to. Play smart and you'll end up with a campaign! Charge into every room expecting a balanced encounter and the campaign will end real fast.

[Karaptis]

Play smart and you'll end up with a campaign! Charge into every room expecting a balanced encounter and the campaign will end real fast.

BINGO! All players cry fowl to the DM because they cant kill that Mummy at 2nd level (run past him dummies)!

[Raven_Crowking]

Did Conan take part in a campaign or did he do a series of adventures which made him into a king? I guess it depends on the player. Mine don't want to change the world(myself included) we just like to kill and loot and maybe talk to (harass) some NPCs, build a stronghold etc. We are refreshingly shallow.

I would say that, from the reader's point of view, Conan is involved in episodic play. Likewise any literary protagonist whose exploits take place in discreet episodes. IMHO, this is the ideal playstyle for DCC RPG, as I believe that the RAW are strongly written for that direction.

However, some are not interested in playing Conan from the reader's point of view; they prefer to play Conan from Conan's point of view. From this point of view, what constitutes a discrete episode isn't known until later reflection makes it so. Creating such an experience requires a persistent campaign milieu.

These days, "campaign" is often used to denote a linear series of adventures which comprise a set "storyline", such as the Paizo Adventure Paths. Among older gamers, "campaign" meant the persistent milieu, and what took place within that milieu.

If you wanted to use the older campaign model with DCC, I would recommend a setting area (again, a large exotic city and sprawling complex beneath would be ideal for allowing many events and interactions), with opportunities for episodic play (specific opportunities, problems, and quests) arising from time to time. I think that the game would do this quite well.


RC

[Raven_Crowking]

Play smart and you'll end up with a campaign! Charge into every room expecting a balanced encounter and the campaign will end real fast.

BINGO! All players cry fowl to the DM because they cant kill that Mummy at 2nd level (run past him dummies)!

Again, though, this doesn't answer the concerns raised.

"I am worried that your dog will bite" cannot be (successfully) answered with "if you want your car to keep running, put gas in the tank!" The advice to put gas in the tank is good advice, but irrelevant to the concerns raised.

[finarvyn]

Just out of curiosity...what's the longest campaign that any of you had back in the 70's/80's? And what happened to the characters?

Back in the 1970's we had a couple of layers of campaign. Our early games were more episodic because we just ran characters through dungeon after dungeon and weren't thinking about running a longterm game. Later we added towns and nations, and the trek to the dungeon became as important as the dungeon itself. (The biggest campaign we ever ran went about 4 years and allowed characters to advance to around 20th level in D&D.) After the big campaign died I morphed into a more creative phase where I would run a game for around nine months, then kill it and start another. I'm mostly in that creative phase decades later, preferring shorter campaigns over longterm ones. I find that I like to have players retire characters around level 6-8 (OD&D), although I'm not sure what level that will be in DCC.

In my mind, DCC RPG has a campaign element that is closer to what OD&D offers. It's definitely dangerous and certainly not as predictable as 4E or 3.5. It's a different style of campaign play than what some gamers may be used to. Play smart and you'll end up with a campaign! Charge into every room expecting a balanced encounter and the campaign will end real fast.

Agreed. I see DCC mostly as the kind of game where you adventure for a while and then when you hit the top levels you reboot and start again with a new situation. I don't think there is anything stopping a person from running one game for years and years, but I don't do it that way much anymore.

[Caseman]

Apologies if this has been covered in another thread, but this discussion of long-term play has me wondering about the best way to introduce a new character into an ongoing campaign. I know there are rules in the book for starting above level 0, but that seems to defeat the purpose of having the initial winnowing process in the first place.

Also, what about the spellcasting characters who, by mid level probably have a whole trunk-load of mystical baggage (corruption, disfavor, quests, etc.) to deal with. Any recommendations for bringing in a new spell-caster without him or her being a metaphysical blank slate?

[ragboy]

My early experiences with D&D campaigns using the OD&D rules were that it took many sessions just to get the campaign started, because level 1 characters kept dying. Finally, a party would mostly survive a dungeon, and then somebody would make it to level 2, and then maybe another PC would also level up, and something would get rolling. And then usually summer break ended and you were out of luck. Even when your campaign did get some momentum, you often ended up with a party of mixed levels -- the game was genuinely challenging, and poor decisions on the part of the players had a toll (character death!).

My experience was similar -- we'd play with one group in the summer, and then be on pause then I'd carry my characters over to another game or campaign during the school year.. Then the next summer might be a hodge-podge of games. We never had a "campaign" per se, just the same characters that bounced around to various episodic adventures.

We'd also often create characters of higher levels -- just depended on the DM. I've probably had 5 characters in AD&D that started at first and made it to 9th...never higher...

As far as DCC longevity -- I don't see a problem. Everything is deadly all the time, but using a CoC model where the next wave of characters have the option of taking up where the dead ones left off (due to notes, legends, relation, etc) seems like it should work just fine. The party wizard that is the sole survivor, but so morally and physically twisted that she cannot continue could commission the next wave of characters...or the dead cleric's god or high priest has the cleric's final notes...or the warrior's 0-level nephew finds a legendary item (or hint of one) in the dead warrior's effects. Seems like the system supports a better continuity than other older versions, to me -- by having lots of built in "hooks" - the rarity of high-level adventurers and their even more rare accoutrements; the closer relationship between gods and clerics, the actual relationship between patrons, power, and wizards/elves, etc.

Of course, I can't talk much yet -- we're on our third session in a long-term (planned campaign). And have run four other disconnected adventures with the beta. We'll see what the player's think.

[finarvyn]

Play smart and you'll end up with a campaign! Charge into every room expecting a balanced encounter and the campaign will end real fast.

BINGO! All players cry fowl to the DM because they cant kill that Mummy at 2nd level (run past him dummies)!

Again, though, this doesn't answer the concerns raised.

Actually, it does to a certain extent.

The point that Joseph was making is that any campaign can be long or short if the players play smart or dumb. If a character makes poor choices the game will end in a hurry but a smart player can extend the lifetime of a campaign for a long time. Karaptis then suggested that poor play is often blamed on the DM for the challenge and not the player for the choices.

Both of these follow along the same line of reasoning to state that DCC can be a longterm campaign for players who think ahead and make good choices. There is nothing in the rules specifically designed to end the game quickly or no reason why game sessions need to be episodic rather than epic. At least, nothing in DCC that is more limiting than any other RPG on the market. Success will be a function of play, not rules.

Does that address the concerns raised?

[ragboy]

Apologies if this has been covered in another thread, but this discussion of long-term play has me wondering about the best way to introduce a new character into an ongoing campaign. I know there are rules in the book for starting above level 0, but that seems to defeat the purpose of having the initial winnowing process in the first place.

Also, what about the spellcasting characters who, by mid level probably have a whole trunk-load of mystical baggage (corruption, disfavor, quests, etc.) to deal with. Any recommendations for bringing in a new spell-caster without him or her being a metaphysical blank slate?

The easy answer is that new characters start as hirelings/henchmen of the surviving characters. We're still at 1st level in my current campaign, so no one has griped too much about starting over. Given that the game is lethal throughout, I don't see that starting at "party level" is necessary. The funnel persists after 0-level, you know

Or to put it in Lebowski terms: The Funnel Abides.

[finarvyn]

Apologies if this has been covered in another thread, but this discussion of long-term play has me wondering about the best way to introduce a new character into an ongoing campaign. I know there are rules in the book for starting above level 0, but that seems to defeat the purpose of having the initial winnowing process in the first place.

Also, what about the spellcasting characters who, by mid level probably have a whole trunk-load of mystical baggage (corruption, disfavor, quests, etc.) to deal with. Any recommendations for bringing in a new spell-caster without him or her being a metaphysical blank slate?

While no official rules have been established yet for this, I would suggest a few things:
1. The new character should be added at a level comparible with the rest of the party.
2. The new character should be given "goodies" of similar quality to what the rest of the party has. (This would include gold, magic items, etc.)

The key isn't to try to duplicate the experience of the rest of the party, but instead to put together a new character that would fit in with the party without being too strong or too weak.

As far as spellcasters go, get together with the player and have him build the mage one level at a time. (When I do this, I usually don't tell them what the final character level will be.) Let him determine spells, etc, at first level. Then tell him to advance them to second, pick additional spells, and so on. Continue the process until he reaches the level you like. This greatly accelerates the growth of the character but makes the player pick spells one at a time, which I think works better than picking all of the spells at once.

[Raven_Crowking]

Again, though, this doesn't answer the concerns raised.

Actually, it does to a certain extent.

The point that Joseph was making is that any campaign can be long or short if the players play smart or dumb.

Again, I disagree. Joseph's point is valid, to some extent, but there are two sides of the table, and the ruleset in use affects play experience from both sides.

http://ravencrowking.blogspot.ca/2011/1 ... ystem.html
http://ravencrowking.blogspot.ca/2011/1 ... em_17.html
http://ravencrowking.blogspot.ca/2011/1 ... em_27.html

System matters, and what the GM must do to prepare adventures matters quite a bit. My concern had been related to (1) the rule of thumb that for every hour's prep, the GM should get 2 hours (5 is my actual goal) of play, and (2) how the "quest for it" nature of the game affects both GM prep and player agency.

If you read the blog posts, you should note that DCC very much meets every other criteria described! Indeed, it does so exceedingly well. And, as I have said, I begin to think that DCC will also meet the fast creation criteria. I am also less concerned about the player agency question, but I think that the player agency question is what people are really concerned with.

I.e., in session 1, X happens to you. To undo X, you must accomplish Y. In session 2, you attempt to accomplish Y, but Z happens to you. To undo Z, you must..... etc., where the Judge essentially takes agency from the players, and leads them along from adventure to adventure. No different than simply playing a series of modules. It reduces player agency, and to some degree prevents the players from following longterm goals for their characters.

Again, I don't think that this will be a problem in actual play. Changes from the Beta certainly help! But I don't think that Joseph's comments actually address that. I do think that it would be worthwhile to develop a series of "mini-sandbox" modules that offer examples of how the game can accommodate such play. Again, adventures that are not as strongly "story" and more strongly "area to explore and create your own story in." Places where the metric of play is larger than the encounter.

If a character makes poor choices the game will end in a hurry but a smart player can extend the lifetime of a campaign for a long time. Karaptis then suggested that poor play is often blamed on the DM for the challenge and not the player for the choices.

Yeah, I get that.

But two things end the game: The player choosing to not play, and the GM choosing to not run. A game must be both fun to play, and fun to run, and the prep work must be such that it doesn't detract from the GM's enjoyment of the game (3.x, I'm looking at you).

Dumb choices can end the game, sure....or they can just delay the game while the players prep a new bunch of characters.

But I quit both 2e and 3e because the prep work required to make the game run well in a sandbox style exceeded the golden mean. I was doing more than 1 hour's work for 2 hour's play (with 3e, it was pretty close to 1-to-1, or slightly over on the work side).

We have examples of how the DCC ruleset works to create single episodes -- two of them included in the core book -- but we have yet to see an example of how the DCC ruleset works to create something larger. If a good GM wants to run a game, he can find players. IME, that's never been close to a problem. But, no matter how much you want to play DCC, you need someone to GM it, and you have to address the longterm campaign from the Judge's point of view for there to be a longterm campaign to make good choices in.

So, no, that does not address the concerns raised, because it is addressing the wrong side of the table.

You don't need to convince players; you need to convince GMs.

(And, again, I believe that the DCC RPG can do this, and do it well, but I think you're going to need to show how it can be done, because the Judge's section of the book very heavily implies episodic play.)


RC

[RevTurkey]

Longest on-going characters...

D&D (Mentzer)...about 5th level
AD&D 1e... About 7th level
AD&D 2e... About 12th level
3e D&D...5th level and still played every now and then.
4e D&D... 9th level
Castles & Crusades... About 12th level

What do I learn from this? Not much except 10 levels of DCC will be plenty for long term play.

As to the lethal nature of things like criticals etc, well the game I have played most over the years has been Rolemaster. That game is VERY deadly to characters. One hit, even from a 1st level Goblin can kill even the most powerful Warrior if the dice wish it. Well, I managed to lose many characters over many games but the three that made it past 10th level and survived really counted for something! It makes for memorable games knowing that victory is uncertain and that trouble lies around every corner. For me, a game that is exciting and memorable is suitable for long term play even if it is deadly rather than a predictable slog through an easy, obvious series of games that are too balanced and boring. Just my opinion, don't shoot me.

[Raven_Crowking]

Yes, the car needs gas to run.

Now, about your dog.....


Imagine that a Judge wishes to create a new campaign world. Naturally, he is interested in creating Patrons that relate to that campaign world. How much work must he do to create a patron, and how much play will he get out of that work? I.e., the value of the work must be seen to exceed the actual work of that work.

It is in Goodman Games' best interest to address this, and to show (1) how to increase the value as well as (2) how to do the work in as fun and "non-work-y" way as possible.

If I want to run a sandbox campaign, and I want to follow the "no more generic orcs" meme, how do I do this? Again, it is in Goodman Games' interest to provide an answer. Indeed, as the random language table is going to suggest that characters speak the languages of various humanoids, how does that work when they explore the world, and there are none of those humanoids there?

Again, it is in Goodman Games' interest to show what a mini-sandbox for DCC looks like, because the mini-sandbox is the model on which larger sandbox games are built.

This has nothing to do with how often characters die (or anything on the players' side of the table) and has everything to do with the Judge.

You do not have to convince the players; you do have to convince the GM.

If the GM is running DCC, that's what you're playing, or you are not playing in that game. And it is always easier to find players than GMs.

[RevTurkey]

Good points, well made.

[reverenddak]

So his might be a tough question to answer, given DCC is barely out yet... In any case, one comment I've seen in a lot of blogs is a thought that DCC might not be suitable for long-term play. I wasn't involved with the playtest so I myself lack the context on this. But I am curious what others think or have experienced in this regard. How does the game change at higher levels? Does it break down at a certain point? Is experience gained at a reasonable rate?

To answer the OP. I've been running a campaign since BETA was released. We went through a LOT OF 0-level characters. Like half-inch thick of 0-level characters (saved for prosperity.) Now characters are creeping towards 3rd (Ironically, the character that was nearest to 3rd just died. RIP Jingles.) But yes, a campaign is totally do able and fun. Players get really bummed when their characters die, that's just the unfortunate reality of it. In my campaigns, death is permanent unless players make the effort to seek some sort of reincarnation or resurrection. But that's up to them. When Jingles died, who was the thief, the rest of the party started to chant, "Cleric, cleric, cleric." because, frankly, the party needs a cleric. Now they're going to need a thief.