DCC, 3.5E, and B/X Numbers

When I first got DCC, I assumed the game was "tuned" around OSR and B/X numbers regarding attack bonuses and hit points. The game is more tuned around 3.5E-style numbers, hit points, and attack bonuses. I use the fire giants of three games to compare values with:

• DCC Attack Bonus: +22
• OSE Attack Bonus: +10
• 3.5E Attack Bonus: +20

The attack bonuses, minus multi-attacks, are comparable. They are baseline double B/X.

• DCC average hp: 80
• OSE average hp: 51
• 3.5E average hp: 142

D&D 3.5E hit points are around double what DCC gives. Compared to B/X, OSE has about 1.5 times the hit points.

• DCC attack damage: 4d10+10, 32 average
• OSE attack damage: 5d6, 18 average
• 3.5E attack damage: 3d6+15 (3 attacks), 26 average, 78 maximum total (52 realistic)

The 3.5E damage maximum is deceptive since it assumes that last +10 attack hits, so it is closer to 52 for two attacks. So DCC is in the middle, with 1.5 times less and more for OSE and 3.5E.

• DCC AC: 17
• OSE AC: 15
• 3.5E AC: 23

AC values are closer to B/X on the low levels, but ancient dragons in 3.5E and DCC are around AC 40. AC is too high in 3.5E by about five points for DCC.

Don't enter this realm if you are afraid of math!

So if you convert from OSE, double the attack bonus, multiply attack damage, and hit points by 1.5 times. AC is about the same. If converting down from 3.5E, use the same attack bonus, halve the hit points, reduce damage by 1.5 times, and AC is about 70% at the lower levels, and for boss monsters, they are about equal to 3.5E.

Low-end 3.5E monsters are okay with DCC. A 3.5E orc is AC 13, +4 attack, and 2d4+4 damage. An OSE orc is AC 13, +0 attack, and 1d6 damage. A DCC orc is AC 11 (you could armor them up, too), +1 attack, and 1d8+1 damage.

This is why I like the first edition and B/X games like OSE. Even AD&D 2nd Edition started increasing monster hit points, but nothing beats the original game's flat numbers and lower modifiers. Every version of Wizards D&D has been on a hit-point inflation track for the last 25 years.

DCC is a 3.5E game since the dragon AC numbers can scale up to 40, and the hit point and damage numbers are higher than OSE. If you are converting from 3.5E to DCC, use a 50% hp, -5 AC, half-damage attacks, and if monsters have multiple attacks, dice chain them down from the d20. DCC being aligned with 3.5E makes sense since Goodman Games published so many 3.5E modules.

DCC can replace all of my third-edition games since it is essentially a replacement game that is more old-school focused and isn't as structurally broken as D&D 3.5E. I enjoy DCC more than I do 3.5E, but I still have my 3.5E books out, while 4E and 5E sit in the garage. Having my 3.5E books out means I can play them apart or together as an option, and the DCC and 3.5E combo gives me the best of Gonzo and Wizards D&D on my shelf, and the games work together well.

Shadowdark: Western Reaches Kickstarter

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/shadowdarkrpg/western-reaches

The Shadowdark: Western Reaches Kickstarter went live today, and wow, there are a lot of premium-quality, lovely things in this campaign. They are collecting the expanded rules in the Cursed Scroll Zines to add as official parts of the game and creating their own campaign setting for everything.

This feels like "Advanced Shadowdark" without the complex rules and just "more stuff."

If you go "all in," it is a bit pricy, but considering the quality of the components and everything you get, it is an ideal gift for the true Shadowdark fan.

I hope this setting takes on a life of its own and becomes a springboard for novels, adventures, and other stories, much like the Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk. Shadowdark will be my "5E game" and the inheritor of my dreams and ideas in the 5E space.

Too dark and deadly? Mod it to be more heroic. The game embraces change, ownership of your game, and unique play style. Want more character power for super-heroic games? Mod it. Are there any pulp play options? In the book. The game can still be deadly while embracing a more pulp-adventure style.

I hope for a big campaign for this one since games that respect the old-school, while inviting in the world's 5E players, are suitable for everyone playing together and provide a sorely needed bright spot in place of D&D 2024's falling flat with many.

I hope this prints and delivers quickly! I also hope there are no issues with tariffs, which have been a sore spot in fulfillment for many projects these days, and no extra added costs.

Shadowdark is worthy. This game pulls in far more 5E players than old-school gamers, just due to the size of the 5E market, and introduces many to our old-school world. It is a gateway game, and making this your primary system is very comfortable. I can teach and play with anyone in 5 minutes and work almost anywhere, from VTTs to chat rooms.

Shadowdark is 5E to me.

We also have the DCC Dungeon Denizens II Kickstarter next week, so this will be a good week for old-school 5E and 3.5E crowdfunding here in 2025.

The Case for OSRIC

The "more" game isn't always the "better" game.

There is a case for sticking with OSRIC and not moving to a "stuff" game like Adventures Dark & Deep.

Over the years, I find "alt classes" - like the bard and others- to weaken a party and dramatically increase the challenge. Some may like that, but the more specialized classes you have, the more players want to explore them, and the balance of the game's core classes gets lots in the shuffle.

It is like someone wanting to be a barbarian but not realizing that they will be taking a lot of damage due to their lack of armor, and then the party's healer will rush to keep up. The balance, power use, healing, and everything else around a party that would be fine with an armored fighter is suddenly thrown out of whack with a barbarian.

The same goes for specialty mages whose damage output does not match a pure magic user. All of a sudden, the specific situation the mage excels in isn't combat, and that damage potential drops, making encounters harder on the party. The same goes for thieves versus bards. In some games, the designers do a good job and ensure the damage is there, but the original first-edition rules got it right with the base classes.

It is the same for specialty healers or special-function divine classes that cannot heal as well as healers. The more specialized the class, the more niche the role, and the less the character can contribute to the party - thus altering the game's balance.

Sometimes, "keeping it simple" makes the game easier for everyone and reduces the workload on new players who ask, " What does that class do?" Shadowdark has only four classes in the book, and the game plays great. Keeping it simple works, and it makes the game better.

If you want to be a bard, simply say your cleric, fighter, thief, or magic user has a musical background as a performer. If this ability may help or be used, roll for it. If you give everyone a free background profession, someone could pick blacksmith, another survivalist, etc. You will get most of the fun and utility of a "skill system" without needing one in your game.

Does someone want a new skill? Sure, 6 months to a year of training in your off-adventure time, and it is yours. That is how it is done in real life; you spend time, apprentice, and attend school. It may cost tuition or money to pay for an apprentice and materials. All the skills "specialist henchmen" have can be taught to you, and there is your "skill list."

Or you could give a free "skill level" like this at every character level, either in a new skill or a +1 in an existing one. This is a first-edition game, mod at will.

You can have "role specialization" within the existing classes just by "saying it is so." Do bards always need "magic songs?" No. A fighter with a bard background sings in battle, and those die rolls during combat trying to weave songs for special effect will be "the player describes what they want to happen" and "the referee rules on it, and may call for a roll or not."

I sing, so the whole party gets a +1 hit and damage!

Okay, you do. No roll needed. No spell is required. You just do.

I sing to calm the owlbear! Okay, roll for that since there is a chance of failing and worsening the situation.

By default, you should not be "rolling for everything" in an old-school game, especially if you have the skill or equipment. It is punitive and player-punishing and minimizes the choices and sacrifices players make. Did you buy a rope and grappling hook, give up part of your backpack to haul it through the dungeon, and wait for your chance to use it?

Why did the referee make you roll to climb when you used it?

You could have climbed that wall without a rope and grappling hook - with a roll.

No roll is needed; you climb the wall because you made a choice, suffered with carrying it around, and used it at an appropriate time. I swear, these bad game designers came around and "skill rolled" every action, no matter the choice or situation, which hurt roleplaying.

No, it is not a +8 because you have excellent equipment. It is "No, you do not need to roll." Think about watching a Conan movie where this guy hauls around a rope and grappling hook for the whole film, and then reaches the moment he can finally use it! He fails his climbing roll, falls off, and dies. I am not watching a Conan film; I am watching a Mel Brooks comedy movie. That is horrible refereeing.

The same thing applies to backgrounds; many actions with them will be automatic. Only roll when the outcome cannot be reasonably assumed or a reasonable chance of failure exists.

That bard background is just as valuable as all others since parties need to survive in the wilderness, repair armor, smith metal, perform diplomacy, know lore, apply non-divine medicine, and all the other skills parties need.

All your fancy "game designer" bard powers are wrapped up in a background choice within the classic first-edition framework, and no extra rules are needed. Any class can be a bard, fighter, thief, magic user, cleric, or paladin.

D&D 2024 Not Selling Well?

I am not buying 2024.

Also, I don't really care.

With the 2014 edition, I purchased six books with that system: the three core, Tasha's, and two others in the second gift set. All the rest of my books were Open 5E, and the damage was done.

I know a few who upgraded, but they were more "for the love of the game" and to support their hobby. Many I see in comment sections will never buy the game due to many factors, including the OGL.

We can't make a final judgment at this point. It is too early, and many were waiting for all the books to be released before deciding to buy. Some financial statements look grim, and many use that as clickbait. We must wait for Q1 2025 statements, a mass firing, or another major shakeup.

Don't try to read Wall Street's tea leaves; you will go insane. The place does not work under the standard profitability assumptions, and its value definition can change on a dime. A company can sustain itself on promises, having and owning nothing, until another company comes along and gobbles it up to own the "value."

There's nothing there, there.

Yet, billions of dollars still change hands for "it."

I just saw another 5E YouTuber I follow walk away from the D&D game. The game is in freefall at this point. It is over once YouTube tells content creators to make videos about something other than D&D. Another day goes by, and I see more of the community quitting and walking away. It feels like a tsunami as the days go by.

This is going to wipe out a lot of good companies and creators.

I see the Wizard's VTT previews and the new starter set (by noted creators), which had less than 1,000 views on the first day. Some haven't even broken 100 views in the first hour.

The era of slapping D&D on a video and having it get tens of thousands of views is over.

I have not been happy with Open 5E. It works, but it inherits all the problems of D&D. The worst feature is the need for computerized character sheets, and the clones never have a great system that supports all the options needed to build characters. That said, Tales of the Valiant is the best-supported Open 5E out there and worthy of your support if you stay with 5E.

Later, 5E books introduced terrible rules, and the clones adopted them.

Tool proficiencies did it in for me. That was a hack for a game that needed a sound skill system but could not support it. Instead of going to college for four years to study a trade, all I need is to be skilled with the "tools," which shows the experience the game designers have with real-world trades and professions.

I bought an automotive tool kit on Amazon. Sure, I can fix your car!

Here is a box with a pencil, paper, notebook, journal, and an ink pen with a well of ink—a writer's kit. Get a tool proficiency in that, and you can be Hemingway or Shakespeare.

Some classes can even swap tool proficiencies on a rest.

I miss the days when games had great skill systems designed to support the theme of the game. And they weren't huge lists, either. They were designed to open avenues of action, force hard choices, and not limit players but enable them to solve problems. Many games have abused skill systems over the years, too. Giving me 500 skills is not game design. Please do not make this a choice between longsword skill and basket-weaving.

Tool proficiencies are as broken as the bonus action and multiclassing. It is time to clean house in the rules of 5E and simplify them again because the "professional" game designers got their hands on them, making the game too difficult to play and create character concepts in. What you say you want to do has to be filtered through chapters of "game designer great ideas" instead of the rules getting out of the way and "allowing you to do what you said you wanted to do."

After the original 5E designers left, the game had no chance, and we ended up with the 2024 rules, which feel like a duct-taped-together collection of great ideas with no idea how they all work together. It is the "Homer's Car" of role-playing games. Weapon masteries feel like tool proficiencies all over again. Bastions are even worse, and herald mobile-phone game design features coming into the game.

Beware of these games that force you through the rules to do the thing you wanted to do. If breathing was allowed, they would create special rules for it, a unique action you would need to take every turn.

I am back in the first edition; save for a few, the rest of these modern games are in the garage.

Wraparound

For me, 6th Edition D&D is First Edition AD&D.

The plot is lost, there have been too many changes, orcs are not orcs, the most-poplar half-elf and half-orc races have been thrown into the memory hole, the game has lost touch with modern haircuts and clothing, and I refuse to touch corporate D&D, or the 5.5E. The game feels like it tries to sell us ideas that were popular four years ago. The game has lost touch, and all the changes Wizards made from 3.0 to 5.5 have led us here.

Wizards D&D, for me, ended at 5th Edition, and was forked and picked up on by the Open 5E alternatives, like Tales of the Valiant and Level Up Advanced 5E. Those are my 5E books, now, and the writing was on the wall since the OGL. Wizards was not a good steward of the IP, they broke the trust of the community when they tried to take back the OGL, and everyone knew what was coming next.

There was this silent promise by Wizards to be a good member of the community. Keeping the OGL and SRD out there, untouched, so the community could thrive was a part of that. This trust is now broken.

Besides, D&D 3.5E is the best version of "Wizards D&D," crafted by the Magic the Gathering original team, and perfected to its broken and messy state. If you want Wizard's D&D, stick with the original and ignore the last 20 years of mess, tabletop MMOs, and memory-holing.

5E was the "pandemic RPG" and the system ended when Wizards "changed the terms of the deal" on the community. These days, play Open 5E if you can and have a clear conscious.

Just, please, avoid the rampant hoarding, collecting, and other plagues that befall 5E at the moment. If you own more than a few books your game is at serious risk of never being played and only "had" to collect. At that point, you are better off parting with it.

So where do I go from here?

I have been exploring AD&D first edition, and rediscovering OSRIC and Adventures Dark & Deep. Going back to first edition feels like a refreshing reset, no matter how complex or pedantic these games can be, these were the first, the 8-bit retro experience, and the way I remembered playing dungeon games.

There is something wonderful about first edition.

I feel like I do when I play an 8-bit game, all of today's slickness is stripped away, and I am left with pure gameplay. I am not leaning on action types, power-dip multi-classing or subclass abilities - there are none. I don't have a complex character sheet that needs a computer to create, I have a simple sheet done by hand. It feels like a classic NES or Sega Genesis gamepad in my hands, with a D-pad and a few buttons, and nothing else fancy.

The DM asks me, "What do you do?"

I am not staring at my character sheet, looking for an answer.

The answer lies inside my head, my imagination, and the situation I am presented with. The answer to "what do you do" is not filtered through Wizard's rules, and that "thought filtering" has been the design goal from D&D 3.0 on. The answer to "what do you do" with the first edition is inside my head.

D&D 5E was only as popular as it was because they rolled that "mind control through rules" back some from 4E (where actions were 'what power card am I using?'), and players' minds were free to decide for themselves. But book by book, that control came back bit by bit. With 5.5E, they have locked it all down again. You can't build a "hammer guy" without jumping through their hoops, picking a few required selections, and even then, the hammer fights you by pushing enemies away. "Best builds" and "action economy" became the "measure of good play."

In my day, the "good play" was in a player's head.

The first edition has that unlimited, unchecked, the answer is not in the book pure thought-to-action goodness that created the hobby. If your actions are controlled by a labyrinth of rules in a book, you are not role-playing. Game designers use thought control on you; you are "discovering" what they already know, plan, and mean for you to do.

You can't be a hero unless you first run your thoughts through a few layers of Wizard's rules.

With the first edition, what is between you and heroic action is minimal. You don't need to run your action plan through several book chapters of rules. You don't need to account for bonus actions or free actions. You are not considering weapon masteries. You are not chaining together actions to combo up the best attack. You don't need to make your heroism fit through Wizards' rules approval process.

Understand what we have dealt with for the last 25 years of West Coast game design, and your mind will be clear.

People have gotten confused and defended 3.5E versus 4E versus 5E versus 5.5E, and nobody sees that they are all the same design style but in a few different flavors. Some people cannot even imagine taking an action on a turn without running it "through the rules first." This is why game turns take 30 minutes for some people, and deciding what to do feels like signing and initialing 200 pages of forms to buy a car or a house.

The first edition does not have any of those concepts. The game never even had a rule for ability checks, though some now do since they were commonplace back then. What do you do? You come up with an idea. You do it. The referee says what happens. The amount of rulebook interaction with that sequence is minimal to none, and it is kept that way for a reason.

I was already moving in this direction, going back a few D&D editions, to 3.5, to 2nd, and finally, back home in AD&D first edition, and the modern retro-clones of this game. In my opinion, the classic Adventures Dark & Deep system is the best.

D&D is a loop from the first edition to the fifth. The true sixth edition is the first one, and I have wrapped around and returned to what I love.

For me, 6th Edition D&D is First Edition AD&D....

ADAD vs. OSRIC

OSRIC vs. ADAD?

What is the difference?

Game-engine-wise, there is not that much of a difference. There may be a few things around armor vs. weapon types, initiative, classes, spells, numbers, and other fiddly bits - but the core game engines are the same. 

There is a minor difference in the combat engine being more streamlined in ADAD vs. OSRIC, and I prefer ADAD's streamlined combat which integrates weapon speed much better. The fact weapon speed it directly tired into initiative means the system Gygax wanted us to have (with speed factor) has been implemented in a way that does not seem like a penalty, and it is easy to manage and use. I would use ADAD's combat system with OSRIC, most likely.

The modules work the same, monsters work the same, spells work the same, and they are 99% compatible. Either OSRIC or ADAD is a solid choice.

The significant differences are in options, and the most considerable differences are in the new skill system and the classes available. To begin, OSRIC's class list is as follows:

• Assassin
• Cleric
• Druid
• Fighter
• Illusionist
• Magic User
• Paladin
• Ranger
• Thief

ADAD has all of those, plus:

• Bard
• Jester
• Skald
• Cavalier
• Blackguard
• Vates
• Mystic
• Barbarian
• Savant
• Acrobat
• Mountebank

The ADAD Darker Path expansions add:

• Witch
• Necromancer
• Demonolater

What sells me on ADAD over OSRIC is having a first-edition bard and barbarian class, plus many more to explore and play with. If you don't need those, keep your life simple and play OSRIC. If you have 5E players wanting more class options and choices, then ADAD is the better game.

ADAD is the "more stuff" game, reflecting the first edition at the end of its lifecycle when it was expanded and fully matured. OSRIC was the game when it started, with just the first three books.

Me? I will go for the "more stuff" since I played AD&D back in the day, and I have campaigns that will use those new classes. The only thing missing is new race selections and more modern designs, but I can create these with Grok 3 and beta them myself.

ADAD typically expands every area it explores, from spells, equipment, strongholds, and weapons—it is all more and expanded. Is "more" better? You need to answer that for yourself.

For those wanting an easier and more streamlined game, playing OSRIC will be the better choice since the options and choices are just the classic selections. Both are on my shelves. ADAD is the apparent "more stuff" game, so it keeps me busy exploring new options. OSRIC will always be my "Old School Essentials" version of the first edition.

ADAD has a skill system where you "pay XP" to get non-combat profession-like skills for your character. This is a more in-depth roleplaying style character improvement than OSRIC. Again, this falls into the "more stuff" theme of the game, and if you don't want that extra system, stick to OSRIC.

There is an OSRIC argument for "keeping it simple" and only focusing on the original first-edition content. From this point, you could expand the game and keep your core experience as streamlined and narrowly focused as possible.

Myself?

Both games are on my shelf, alongside my first-edition books. They all support each other.

ADAD does things the best, for me.

ADAD: A Strange Excitement in the Air

I don't know what it is about Adventures Dark & Deep that has me pumped up; I haven't been this excited about a game in a long while. On the surface, it is a first-edition retro-clone, only a bit crunchier and in-depth.

There isn't that much to buy for it either. I have all the books, and the print versions are coming here.

What is it about this game? I swear it has an "it factor," that psychic feeling I get about a game before it gets big. Granted, the Kickstarter for this wasn't astronomical, but the game has the pedigree and a designer knowledgeable in the game and subject.

I can't wait to play this.

If I look back, AD&D was always a game I liked. And yes, GURPS did replace it. That story of Greyhawk, the Forgotten Realms, and the world's lore. My problem is that 5E feels like "false lore" in my experience, the "video game version" of a world I once knew. All the powers saved and the effects of magic spells are done on 6-second turns, and in AD&D, some of these durations were minutes. If you were hit by a charm or hold person spell, that was it - this was not being "thrown off" the next turn.

5E is even more of a video game than 4E was, and the entire game is built around the "six-second combat clock." This turn-by-turn game is not classic D&D or AD&D but pen-and-paper video gaming.

With ADAD, I am finally looking back into these worlds as I knew them back in the day. Sure, I could always play them with Old School Essentials or even Castles & Crusades, but those are a few steps removed from what I remember.

ADAD, being based on a first-edition framework, hits differently. It has an authenticity to it, and I felt I was missing. It feels low-magic when, by all accounts, it shouldn't.

And this isn't the second edition, where the power-gaming splat books flowed like wine, and all the GMNPCs were unkillable. In our first-edition game, Elminster felt vulnerable and weak and needed care and caution when approaching a problem. He was over 500 years old and a 26th-level magic-user by the rules and the original campaign book. By the rules, he will have 50-60 hp. He needs to use cloth armor; even with all that magic, he is still fragile.

We never saw him as a problem since the AD&D rules put a cap on his power. He could still lose initiative and get hit with an arrow of slaying. He is so old that his system shock and resurrection chances will be low. Many evil factions want him. His physical scores are not that high, so he is slow, weak, and frail.

Even if "he was touched by the gods," he should have been "called back home" long ago because he sets a negative precedent for the game world. Because Elminster exists, N+1 unkillable GMNPCs exist. This all started in AD&D 2nd Edition when the power gaming crept in.

How do you fix the GMNPC problem in the Forgotten Realms?

How about playing by the rules in the book?

And not "touching characters by the gods" to the point they become superheroes? Everything has a cost, and life only lasts so long - even by the rules in AD&D, which put a cap of 120 years on humans.

If you have unkillable GMNPCs, you are probably not playing by the rules in the book, making some ridiculous decisions as a referee, and not increasing the cost of benefits granted to characters. Like a credit card, those referee-granted boons have a price, and the bill comes due someday. For him to be over five times his age, where he would generally be "called home by the gods to serve as the Celestial Librarian," he has to have some severe limits on his actions and significant limitations to his magic.

Characters who become living gods get called home.

The world is for mortals.

And if push came to shove, I would have ruled that for our Realms campaign for all PCs who got above the 20th level. You are summoned to the "Hall of Heroes" or the "Lair of Infamy," you do planar adventures all day, but you aren't allowed to wreck a world made for mortals. Even Dragon Lance's setting said that if you got above a certain level, you were removed from the mortal world and sent elsewhere.

I don't care how many books the character sells; encouraging this isn't good for the game. But, again, when we followed AD&D rules for this world, we never had a problem with these NPCs. Follow the rules for magic by the book, and you realize "casting a wish spell while in combat" will not happen. In AD&D 2nd Edition, we saw the problem.

And it feels like they took the GMNPC syndrome of unkillable, overpowered, and insufferable characters and built 5E to be that game. If you are playing a game with unkillable GM NPCS, you are either not playing by the rules, fudging your rolls, or playing 5E.

If you have unkillable PCs or NPCs in your game or have been playing for years and no character has died, you are not playing the game by the rules.

Or you are playing 5E.

I swear, this is why some kids could not handle the game in the 1980s. They got too invested, and it is just like getting too invested in Monopoly and flipping the board if you see yourself losing. Now, all of 5E caters to the "flip the board" crowd, and they encourage investing yourself in the game to a point where it causes health issues.

This is why cheating the game, fudging rolls, or breaking the rules isn't good. It ends up destroying your world. Your world has a finite amount of legitimacy and authenticity. Letting characters like Elminster turn into GMNPCs and unkillable problem-solvers and the hero who steps in and says, "Let us handle this," like the Avengers, makes you look like a terrible referee and destroys your world.

The first edition feels like this is the other path. The other way to go. A game where superheroes don't rule the multiverse. A game where normal people rise to be heroes, grow old, build strongholds, retire, and begin the next generation of heroes again. A game where even the powerful feel vulnerable.

Gods are gods, and mortals are mortals.

In a first-edition world, everyone dies from a short, heroic life or old age in their stronghold as they pass the kingdom. The rules help tell the story of the world, not just one character.

The focus on "me and my power" in 5E is the fundamental flaw of the game.

ADAD feels like I could return to our original version of the Realms and explore that world again without all the drama and power-gaming. The same goes for Greyhawk or any other classic setting. Could I do this with OSRIC or even the original first-edition rules?

I could.

I was already moving in this direction with OSRIC. This is still a highly legitimate first-edition game, especially for those who do not want changes to the core system. OSRIC is the first edition's Old School Essentials. ADAD expands upon the game as part "what if" and part "what could be?"

ADAD just accelerated where I was headed.