Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG

Goodman Games has released a beta version of their tabletop RPG for free. Free. Download here.

I like a lot of elements of the game but don't think I would play it as written. If I was going to run a different game than 4E I would want it to be a simple as possible, and as streamlined as some of the rules are, some bits are a bit complicated.

Various thoughts as I skim over the pdf again, both good and bad:

• Starting as 0-level and picking a class after 100XP sounds cool, but I could see many players turned off by this. I'd like to give it a shot.
• I like the change up of ability scores. Wisdom and Charisma are combined into Personality. Luck modifies one random type of roll, plus some class abilities, and PCs can burn luck points to get bonuses to rolls. 
• The complete randomness of character creation could be another sticking point for people. 3d6 for ability scores, straight down the line. Random professions are optional at least, but some are just better. Random spells I don't like (more on that later). 
• I know the spirit of the game is to take a nobody and let them grow into a powerful adventurer during play. I think its a valid way to play, especially since every other RPG I've played recently lets you create a custom badass right away. But its something I'd have to talk gamers into.
• The Cleric has some interesting points. Turn Unholy is cool because it affects any creature antithetical to your alignment, not just undead. I like that they have a different spellcasting schtick than wizards; -1 cumulative to spell checks when you cast the same spell multiple times in a day, but you can theoretically cast all day. Not much different than a standard D&D cleric, though. I don't think clerics really fit the Sword & Sorcery theme that well. Cultists of dark gods, sure. 
• Not too crazy about the Thief. I've never really like playing rogues, so maybe I'm biased. They get extra benefits from spending Luck, which is cool. But other than that they're typical old school thieves--useless  in combat unless they can backstab, and they use percentage based skills. Grrrr. 
• The Warrior is awesome. They use a variable die as an attack bonus and if they roll a 3 or better on that die they get a Mighty Deed of Arms. Basically, something cool happens in addition to damage. This covers cinematic stunts and stuff not normally covered by the rules. Really good stuff. They are so good, I wonder why anyone would want to play any other class. 
• Contrary to what I posted a few days ago, Warriors do pick a favored weapon, which gets their Luck bonus. I don't like this 1)PCs shouldn't be picky about weapons in S&S, 2) if you have a high Luck bonus you'll never spend Luck points, 3) if you have a low Luck with a penalty your "favored weapon" will be something you never use so you don't get the penalty. I'd have to houserule this.
• Wizards have great flavor but I feel like it was bungled a little in the execution. 
• Rolling randomly for spells sucks. If you don't get Magic Missile you're really underpowered in combat. You have an equal chance of getting Cantrip, Comprehend Languages, or Mending. Lame. I'd rather see a variety of attack powers with different effects.
• You can get spells to invoke a patron, then learn spells to call on that patron...too much to keep track of. I want to streamline this a little.
• Demi-humans. I don't see why a game trying to differentiate itself from mainline D&D still has elves, dwarves and halflings. I wouldn't mind a "changeling" class similar to the elf that represented fey-touched characters, with some fighting a some magic. Dwarves are just warriors with a shield attack. Halflings seem have some interesting quirks like Good Luck Charm. Could be good for a sidekick to a warrior, like the dwarf in Three Hearts Three Lions, or Ukko from the Slaine comics.
• The skill chapter is two pages. Good. Makes me wonder why Thieves do things differently, though.
• Pretty standard weapons and armor. Good armor is incredibly expensive, which could limit high ACs to higher level characters, but only if you keep that in mind when handing out treasure. I don't want to hand out treasure based on what AC I want my PCs to have. 
• Actually thinking about attack bonuses and AC makes me wonder about how likely it is to hit things and makes me worry. "Balance" is a bad word to many who play old-school, but if your first level character has an attack bonus of +0 and you fight monsters with AC in the 11-16 range your chances to hit vary between 50% and 25%. That's not much fun.
• Combat is mostly dirt-simple, one move and one regular action, no opportunity attacks. The biggest change is crits and fumbles. The crit tables are cool but sometimes produce effects that don't match the situation, and they get complicated because there are different charts different classes and levels. Not too much trouble if you just need to reference them, I guess.
• Fumbles are worse for characters with heavier armor. I don't think I like that a character in full plate is more likely to stab themselves than a PC in leather. Sure, heavy armor can make you clumsy, but warriors trained to be as adept as possible. Plus, its awfully harsh to make people roll every time they roll a natural 1. Maybe something like the Dark Sun optional rule that lets you re-roll a natural 1 but risk breaking your weapon, only it'll be a roll on the fumble chart.
• Spell Duels sounds good but its four pages of rules. Again, guidelines.
• More on magic. I like that spell checks are made with a d20 to determine the power of spells. I don't mind that every spell has a chart of effects, it eliminates the need for lots of spells that are just higher level versions of other spells. I don't like that most of the spells are just standard D&D spells.
• Also, many of the spells require a saving throw in addition to the spell check. I'd prefer something more like 4e, with a static defense for spells for the spellcheck to beat.
• Spellburn is cool. Wizards can take ability damage to get bonuses on spell checks. Very flavorful.
• Mercurial magic sounds good. The idea is that no two wizards cast a spell the same way, so you have a random side effect for each spell you learn. Sounds novel, but you can get very good bonuses or very bad drawbacks on the chart. It would suck to have Primordial Channel on magic missile, because you become stupid and can't cast spells for 1d4 rounds. Suck. I'd like more flavor and less big game effects.
• Corruption again sounds cool, but like fumbles you have to roll every time you roll a natural 1, and all the effects are really bad. And permanent. I'd be scared to cast a spell except when absolutely necessary, which means I wouldn't really be playing much. Maybe a toned-list, and use it as an optional thing to re-roll a natural 1. 

So, some good ideas. But I'd rather cherry-pick good ideas than use the system as written. Which means basically writing up my own game system. Not sure about that.

I really like the Warrior's Mighty Deed of Arms mechanic, the Luck ability, and the flavor of the magic system. I'm tempted to mash these together with the playtest rules of the Redwald setting. That would take some work, but the flavor of the Redwald setting is awesome. Warriors and skirmishers could use similar rules, and I'd have to create some spell write-ups and charts for the different spellcasters.

That means I wouldn't get to use my cool map from the last post though. Or maybe I still could, just use the classes from Redwald. Or I could just modify what I want in the DCC RPG and use it closer to as written. We'll see.