I was just going through my Goodman folder on my hard drive and browsing the DCC pdfs. I really miss these modules and wish GG made some Pathfinder stuff.
I've been following some of the DCCRPG threads but their upcoming game system isnt my cup of tea (zocchi dice, spell effect variations, etc).
I wouldnt mind an adventure or two from Harley Stroh, Adrian Pommier, and Mike Ferguson (besides his River Kingdoms article) for Pathfinder.
/Nostalgiac Sigh
The 3.5 DCCs are, of course, compatible with Pathfinder.
But I agree - it would have been nice if Goodman had gone the Pathfinder route instead. Still, I'm going to get the DCC RPG - if for nothing more than the artwork. :)
The 3.5 DCCs are, of course, compatible with Pathfinder.
I was so disappointed when they went from 3.X to 4E. I was a subscriber and was looking forward to many modules in the 3.X to PF transition when they pulled out of the market.
|
Well... Goodman Games jumped on the 4E bandwagon too early and jumped off too late. Once they decided that following the Industry Leader isn't the best choice, they were considering going Pathfinder, but in the end Goodman decided that he wants a game of his own. Which probably means that it will share the fate of most retroclones out there.
|
Well... Goodman Games jumped on the 4E bandwagon too early and jumped off too late. Once they decided that following the Industry Leader isn't the best choice, they were considering going Pathfinder, but in the end Goodman decided that he wants a game of his own. Which probably means that it will share the fate of most retroclones out there.
Nitpick: As far as I am aware, their system mis not a retro-clone, it's a completely new system.
|
It is a completely new system.
You can check out an open playtest of it here.
This looks awesome, and I'm seriously considering using this system in the future.
Also of note: the new DCC system is a heavily stripped-down version of the 3E/PF system with some serious tweaks. The good news is that this means that the new DCC adventures should be more compatible than from 4E.
|
|
Anything that has silly B&W art (sorry Mr. Otus... not a fan here) gets labelled as a "retroclone" by me. It's meant to appeal to all those "I've played with Gygax's friend's colleague in 1981" folks, and I'm obviously not the target demographic :)
The moment I saw a mention of Zocchi dice and randomly generated spell effects I lost any interest.
|
|
Anything that has silly B&W art (sorry Mr. Otus... not a fan here) gets labelled as a "retroclone" by me. It's meant to appeal to all those "I've played with Gygax's friend's colleague in 1981" folks, and I'm obviously not the target demographic :)
The moment I saw a mention of Zocchi dice and randomly generated spell effects I lost any interest.
A few points:
1. Does that mean a straight clone of 2E with nice color art wouldn't get the same level of condescension from you? Or be considered a retro-clone?
2. Pathfinder itself is essentially a retro-clone, and owes much of it's existence to Matt Finch and Stuart Marshall realizing that the OGL and SRD essentially allowed them to legally re-create older game systems.
|
|
Anything that has silly B&W art (sorry Mr. Otus... not a fan here) gets labelled as a "retroclone" by me. It's meant to appeal to all those "I've played with Gygax's friend's colleague in 1981" folks, and I'm obviously not the target demographic :)
The moment I saw a mention of Zocchi dice and randomly generated spell effects I lost any interest.
A few points:
1. Does that mean a straight clone of 2E with nice color art wouldn't get the same level of condescension from you? Or be considered a retro-clone?
2. Pathfinder itself is essentially a retro-clone, and owes much of it's existence to Matt Finch and Stuart Marshall realizing that the OGL and SRD essentially allowed them to legally re-create older game systems.
1. In that case I would label it as a retroclone after having to spend 5 minutes checking out the content. Silly B&W art makes it easier to identify them at first sight :)
2. I'm sure many OSR people would vehemently chastise you for daring to call that bloated, over-crunched monster filled with needless skills and feats "retroclone".
Back to Goodman Games, if there is anything that I really do despise the Illustrious Industry Leader for is for creating a situation that led to several great 3PPs falling out of the d20 business (Green Ronin, Goodman Games) or falling apart altogether (Necromancer, notwithstanding their recent resurrection as Frog God). Of course, a lot of this has to do with Pramas, Peterson and Goodman jumping the shark, but still. Blergh.
|
|
It's funny, you seem to be showing condescension for black and white art while also in the same breath praising Necromancer Games (as well as Frog God Games and Goodman Games). And Frog God actually supports and publishes that vile detestable retro-clone Swords & Wizardry. :P
I can also point out that Paizo's art itself has gotten much criticism for being too cartoonish and/or anime-like.
|
|
It's funny, you seem to be showing condescension for black and white art while also in the same breath praising Necromancer Games (as well as Frog God Games and Goodman Games). And Frog God actually supports and publishes that vile detestable retro-clone Swords & Wizardry. :P
I can also point out that Paizo's art itself has gotten much criticism for being too cartoonish and/or anime-like.
One has nothing to do with another. The fact that I'm not a fan of retro doesn't mean that I can't be slightly irked that 3PPs that were enjoyed by many went out of business.
And since we're discussing retro-style products, what has Paizo's style to do with the topic?
|
|
You seem to link the art to the merit. After all, you didn't offer any actual criticism other than the "silly B&W art".
I like a wide variety of art styles. I like the Necromancer/Frog God B&W modernized old-school style. I like Pathfinder's very detailed yet cartoonish/anime style. I like Lamentation of the Flame Princess's dark, gritty style.
The moment I saw a mention of Zocchi dice and randomly generated spell effects I lost any interest.
While I didn't like the rest of your post, I agree on the above quote. That's where they lost me too. I was hoping for a 3.5 Basic of sorts without the extra complexity of random spell effects, too many weirdo dice, etc.
Btw, I like B&W art, absolutely love Erol Otus artwork, etc.
I was hoping for a 3.5 Basic of sorts without the extra complexity of random spell effects, too many weirdo dice, etc.
Btw, I like B&W art, absolutely love Erol Otus artwork, etc.
Ditto. I really like the mood and feel some of the old-school black & white line drawings can evoke. I tend to prefer lower-magic/lower-fantasy and the older art seems like it gives me that feeling in me better than a lot of the newer, more cartoonish art.
Also, I too was hoping for a really stripped down 3.x in the DCC product, a faster-paced, smoother, less rules intensive overall product but that does not appear to be the direction its going. I'll still keep an eye on it but for now it doesn't appeal to me.
Also, I too was hoping for a really stripped down 3.x in the DCC product, a faster-paced, smoother, less rules intensive overall product but that does not appear to be the direction its going. I'll still keep an eye on it but for not it doesn't appeal to me.
Same:)
I might still pick up the PDF for the heck of it. Erol Otus and Jason Edwards artwork in the DCCs were my favorites.
The Zocchi dice wouldn't bother me because I have this.
(With the dX feature, I can roll any "die", such as a d7 or a d302.)
Also, I too was hoping for a really stripped down 3.x in the DCC product, a faster-paced, smoother, less rules intensive overall product but that does not appear to be the direction its going. I'll still keep an eye on it but for now it doesn't appeal to me.
You might want to check out what's being done with Castles and Crusades- they tend to be less rules intensive and have the b&w art direction.
You might want to check out what's being done with Castles and Crusades- they tend to be less rules intensive and have the b&w art direction.
Oh I've played C&C and actually liked it a great deal... except for the fact that I think the Siege mechanic needs a good deal of work. Really though, other than that, people looking for a relatively 3.x-ish rules-light type of system could do a lot worse than C&C.
|
I love the Dungeon Crawl Classics! I am still hunting for the last few missing scenario's in my collection. I miss them too.
I was not a huge fan of some of their ideas concerning their new game, but considering they have done awesome work in the past, I am willing to take a good look at it once it is out.
Three days ago I loaded all my Goodman stuff onto my iPhone. I've been reading through my DCCs. :)
I still want to play Whiterock one day. Maybe I'll start some conversion work soon.
I love the Dungeon Crawl Classics! I am still hunting for the last few missing scenario's in my collection. I miss them too.
I was not a huge fan of some of their ideas concerning their new game, but considering they have done awesome work in the past, I am willing to take a good look at it once it is out.
I've also got a huge bunch of the 3.0 DCCs, and love them, and was also really hoping for a 3rd Edition light with this new game, something that stripped out all the annoying and time consuming rules that (for me) bedevil every version of 3rd edition, including Pathfinder (although there are lots of things about it I love). My biggest gripe with 3rd edition has always been the combat system, which turned my battles from a fluid and intuitive melee into a rigid and inflexible sequence of measurements, actions and AoOs, and I thought that the Goodman rpg was going to simplify all that.
The crucial point is, I was thinking of converting some of my Pathfinder material over to Goodman's new system, but now I see that if I want to play the modules I'll have to do the reverse, which seems pointless (although I'll definitely check out the finished version and modules). But couple that with the Zocchi dice, and..
For me, it's a missed opportunity to provide a game system I was seriously considering adopting. Now, I'm less interested. Just my personal opinion though, I'm sure there are lots of folks out there who'll love it.
For me, it's a missed opportunity to provide a game system I was seriously considering adopting. Now, I'm less interested. Just my personal opinion though, I'm sure there are lots of folks out there who'll love it.
Same boat here.
The emphasis on the tactical aspect (miniatures and the time consuming constant map setups) of 3.5/PFRPG is the biggest negative, IMHO (as a DM). A few situations with mapping/miniatures is ok and even memorable, but not every combat. It always slowed down the home game, stopping to map out every room, etc.The random spell effects was the final nail for me. Dicing for possible random effects every time a spell is cast, seems to further slow things down. I prefer the 1 is a miss, 20 is a possible critical for simplicity sake, instead of multiple choice for every spell.
As for the Zocchi dice, the game has enough dice but I could live with it if I had too.