Mutant Crawl Classics: The +1 Game

There are few +1 games for Mutant Crawl Classics since the post-apoc OGL genre is small. However, finding a game to accompany MMC is possible.

My number-one pick is Goblinoid Games's excellent Mutant Future (MF). This one has been around a while, but it does not lessen the fantastic content you get here. Nearly everything is directly compatible, from low-tech gear to high-tech gear, monsters, rules for boats, robots, androids, and many more things packed into this book.

You need to do a descending AC conversion for all the monsters and gear, but it is 19 - MFAC = MCC AC.

The mutations in this game are perfect for monsters or other creatures, where you just want an "attack ability" and nothing for which you want to roll on a mutation chart. For example, an energy ray mutation here does a 4d6 beam of energy (roll or pick type) to 50' every three rounds. This is perfect for many monsters and works well with MCC as a creature power.

MF is a worthy game to play on its own, and if you want more for this game, pick up a copy of the old OSR standby Labyrinth Lord (LL). Use most everything out of here (except magic), rename the monsters, and give them a few random mutations, and you are all set. MF plus LL is a one-two punch of extra stuff for MCC and considerably expands your game while staying in the OSR.

The MF+LL combo is also a good "fantasy baseline" for MCC games, as Mutant Future assumes a Middle Ages level of technology in future societies. War is still made with siege engines and sword fighters, cities have walls, and the general level of technology is deficient, with most ancient artifacts forgotten or useless. Travel is done with carts pulled by mutant animals or boats on a river. There are no "Mad Max" cars here, and the knowledge of the ancients is more removed from everyday life.

There are rules for gunpowder firearms and cars in MF (the cars lack AC values, but that is easy enough to guess using the armor types), and the guns are an excellent addition, so you could hack in a "Mad Max" style game here.

There is also another option for a +1 game, the PoD versions of the original Gamma World, but only the 1st, 2nd, and 4th editions. I recommend 1st or 2nd. Note that the second edition has many more fantasy inspirations, and the layout and organization are terrible, but it has a complete set of monster art and lots of "stuff" to use. The fourth edition is like a cleaned-up second edition (with much more stuff), but they introduce many more rules incompatible with B/X, and the writing in the book is very long-winded.

Overall, Mutant Future is easier to use as a quick +1 game for MCC, but Gamma World is iconic in many ways. There is a massive tone shift in Gamma World, where GW 1st is more like Mutant Future, and GW 2nd is more like MF+LL with many converted-in-fantasy elements. The fourth edition of GW feels more like the early Fallout games.

As the editions were published, Gamma World generally got worse as it got farther away from its B/X roots, and they tried to make it a superhero or sci-fi game. The first edition has the best tone and setting, the second introduces iconic monsters, and from there on, they just keep adding tech and superpowers. Later editions of the game also got unwieldy in the lists of stuff they provided, and the organization could have been better.

The fourth edition was based on AD&D 2nd, but the game developed new rules and subsystems it did not need. This edition also needs to be revised. Instead of keeping something like mental attacks simple, they spend two paragraphs laying out rules about plants being only able to mentally attack plants and how robots and AI are not affected by mental effects. Instead of keeping it simple (plants, humans, mutants, cyborgs, and animals have brains and can be affected; computers and robots cannot), they spend two paragraphs laying out rules about how plants can only mentally attack plants, how mental attacks on machines fail, and so many other nuances I wish an editor with a laser-chainsaw would have spent more time here.

Many of them followed the desktop publishing fads of the day, overusing two-letter abbreviations to the point of nonsensical notation. They tried to look "cute" over having a readable book.

Mutant Future is a "reset" on the genre and gives you the best Middle Ages setting to use as a baseline society. I like basing tech and knowledge on a fantasy baseline since this lines up with 1970s fantasy inspirations the best. Once you enter the 1980s and 1990s, the games start copying Mad Max, Fallout, and other "pop culture sensation of the week" sources.

One problem with the 2nd edition Gamma World was the monsters; they have fae-like "Lil" and a massive list of powers in the setting. In our games, these became the only fae, when in the original spirit of the game, taking a fae as a baseline and applying a set of random mutations to it to create a unique species of fae is a much better option and keeps the game fresh.

Perhaps there are "glow fae" that have radiation powers and live around ancient reactors since they are immune to the energy and feed off it. This system is more like the MF+LL combo, where you pick a baseline fantasy monster, roll random mutations, and see what you can imagine.

The GW 2nd monsters can become far too iconic and take over the game like licensed IP, and it gets predictable and boring. I love the 2nd edition monsters, but in my version of the world, every monster or local species should be unique and different. You don't know if that mutated carp will shoot radiation beams, freeze the water, or try to take over your mind.

The world is much more unpredictable when you see something and have no idea what it can do, rather than repeatedly seeing the same old "rad fish."

All that said, using Gamma World as a +1 game for MCC is only for advanced referees with knowledge of the editions, the problems they introduce, and a love of the source material. The Mutant Future game is much more straightforward and easy. If you want the fantasy elements, MF+LL is far easier than GW 2nd and gives you infinitely more flexibility.

Also, the LL+MF combo is worth as playing as its own game, too. Even without DCC, this is a highly compelling combo that gives you the best of both worlds.

Also of note, Kevin Crawford is developing Ashes Without Number, an update of his old Other Dust game, and a game in the same genre as Gamma World, MCC, and Mutant Future. Any of the ...Without Number games are excellent, top-quality toolkits, and it is worth keeping an eye out for this one.

Dungeon Crawl Classics: Feat Systems

Just because you could do it doesn't mean you should.

In my optional rules booklet, I was thinking about an optional DCC feat system, something like 3.5E-style feats that can be chosen and added to the characters like my simplified skill system. The skill system is nice. It gives characters additional areas of training based on their choices and gives them a way to specialize and customize their characters.

The skill system I developed doesn't take anything away; it adds to the characters. Having a few more training areas across skills and allowing specializations doesn't limit anyone.

The 3.5E-style feat system, as it is done in games with them? It takes away more than it gives. Like power attack, cleave, and other feats that give fighters special attack options? DCC has the mighty deeds of arms system and the "deed die" - which covers all those feats and more.

In DCC, you do not need "fighter feats" at all since the deed die covers it.

Similarly, spell-burn, thief luck, and many other DCC systems have you covered in terms of special abilities. You don't need a lot of feats giving you "extra stuff to do" since you are assumed to "get a lot of stuff to do." This is also how skills work in the base game, trained or untrained, roll against a DC with a modifier.

The 3.5E-style feat system, as it is traditionally implemented, is a "takeaway" system. A character can't do anything but "basic actions," players need to sort through a few thousand feats to find all the unique things that characters can do. This is a horribly regressive system, forcing every player to know hundreds of feats, what they do, and if a special attack or action type is already covered under a feat - and thus, disallowed as a character action during a turn.

Feat systems justify "taking away cool stuff" to add it to the feat system.

Let's add "jump attack" as a feat! That sounds cool! Suddenly, players trying "jump attacks" can't do that because that would disadvantage players who took that feat for their characters. And as a mighty deed of arms, you can't do jump attacks. That's a feat! And if you buy a book with 100 new feats, that is 100 more things you can't do.

Other feats in 3.5E are boring "straight bonuses" like "+2 to poison saves" that are better added to characters as a part of the story. DCC does a lot of "quick add" to character sheets based on what happens during the adventure, especially magical corruption and mutations. If a character saves a unicorn, and one of the "random boons" the unicorn bestows is a "+2 on poison saves," - you just add that straight on the character sheet; no feat is required. The character has that forever.

Just write it down. No special rules are required.

This is DCC; characters rarely live long enough for a permanent unique bonus to unbalance the game that much. Even if a level 1 DCC character finds a laser rifle that does 6d6, an attack isn't terribly unbalancing in the scheme of things, especially if it blows up on a fumble.

Another class of feats is "class requirements," which you want to avoid. Like the cleave, combat casting, improved initiative, or power attack feats in 3.5E, some of these were "must haves" for many character builds. These aren't even choices, so they need to be tossed out. It is like having an "improved spell-burn" feat in DCC that doubles the value contributed to those dice rolls. This is so good it is a must-have for all casters. Is it cool, and does it make sense? Yes. But it breaks the game so hard and gives such an advantage that the feat becomes a requirement for all casters.

Other feats let you break specific game rules or grant you exemptions. These are a bit more interesting, but they also have a high possibility of breaking the game and becoming "must-haves."

Just because another game "does something" does not mean "you should do it, too." A lot of the rules introduced by Wizards of the Coast, even back in 3.5E, were anti-player and anti-referee rules that put more control of the game in the hands of the company. They seemed great then, but they eventually shifted most of the freedom of building characters into purchased books and took away so much of what made the old-school games fun in favor of book sales.

If I developed a feat system, it would have a hard requirement of "adding to characters" without "taking things away from others." DCC has a default assumption that "characters are awesome" and that they can make up a lot of stuff to do on the fly. You must avoid adding a feat system that chips away at player freedom. I would likely not even call it feats since that system has a "game-breaking" expectation that removes player options.

I remember how the Low Fantasy Gaming game had a feat system; players could invent a unique ability at every few levels. They gave you a few samples, but the game also lets players come up with anything, given referee approval. This requires an experienced group and referee to do well and have excellent knowledge of the rules. This is more in the spirit of DCC, but honestly, the game does a lot without a feat system like this, and you may be creating feats to limit yourself (or others).

Maintaining the "freedom of action" that players have is paramount.

Also, keeping that spirit of "just write it down" is essential.

You can't add a system that relies on limiting options by default for everyone else.

Given DCC's two design features, adding a feat system is a very difficult task and possibly not worth pursuing since the design goals of a 3.5E-style feat system run counter to the spirit of DCC.

Dungeon Crawl Classics: Skill System

Appendix R of the Dungeon Crawl Classics rules tells judges to "expand the game to suit their own style." I don't mind if I do.

I can borrow parts from other games, such as the equipment lists, encumbrance rules, monsters, treasure tables, and magic items. I don't need to recreate the wheel; I shall if the game says to borrow it. Both Swords & Wizardry and OSRIC are excellent primary sources, and you can go right either way.

I alternate between OSRIC and S&W as my primary game, and I love both. There is no reason to limit yourself to just one, honestly. S&W is more 1974 and closer to the inspiration. OSRIC is the ultra-detailed 1980s first-edition game I grew up with.

But I am thinking of a skill system for DCC that is different from the horrid, exploitable, and complicated system that 3.5E and Pathfinder 1e turned the skill system into. In those games, you have a high INT and join a skill-generous class; you need to catch up; who cares about skills in this all-or-nothing system?

I don't want skill points, but I want players to be able to specialize or pick new background skills as they level. I like the system to work as it does, with occupation and class being the prime drivers for what your character is considered "trained" in, along with the unskilled penalty. Things should work precisely as they do but give you options to expand, specialize, or narrow the focus of your character's knowledge.

And it has to be simple.

It also has to leverage DCC mechanics and the dice chain.

But it should not blow the existing balance and challenge out of the water.

It should not replace the existing skill system.

It is so easy to go overboard with add-on rules that I could bolt on a complicated skill system that puts Rolemaster FRP to shame, but that is not DCC to me. "Great designer intentions" often make for horrible games, and I can't even count the games ruined by skill systems over the years. There is this "designer justification" for putting players through endless math, writing skills down, or pure hell in record keeping that just shows a lack of care and through on the designer's part, and a bull-headed ramming through playtesting of skill systems that should have been tossed in the garbage.

Yes, you already have a class system; why do you need skills on top of that? You better have a good reason, and you better not be invalidating or weakening classes to add a skill system that the class should primarily define. What galls me the most is a game presenting the idea of a class and then giving you a skill list of the class that the class has or is trained in.

Why did we need that class again? To make a few skills cost less? Why isn't this a skill-based system again? A game that uses classes as "skill containers," ain't it. Wizards always steal the worst rules to put into D&D, and it shows.

I am now typing up a beta for my rules and will test it on my next playthrough. I have a document I am keeping my expansion and optional rules, and if all goes well, I may publish this as a book of optional "Advanced DCC" rules that I use in my games.

Dungeon Crawl Classics: Appendix R

 

From the DCC Rulebook, the Appendix R section:

The Dungeon Crawl Classics Role Playing Game plays like a 1974 game. The rule set deliberately omits many modern concepts in order to speed game play. During playtest, a variety of players suggested varying rules for further defining areas of play. These suggestions were discarded because they increased complexity and had no precedent in the 1974 rules. In other words, if it could be handled ad hoc in 1974, it can be handled ad hoc now.

That said, some judges do wish to expand the game to suit their own style. There are many well-recognized rules categories which have been deliberately omitted herein: miniatures rules, feats, skill points, prestige classes, races distinct from classes, weapon proficiencies, attacks of opportunity, and so on. These spaces are “blank” within the rules so the judge can easily add in those parts he feels are necessary.

Think of it as a map with many undefined places. The DCC RPG rules leave these blank spots deliberately undefined. Now you as the judge should fill in those regions of the map that most benefit your style of play.

It is strange to think of DCC as a "magic, combat, and class" mod for any OSR game, but according to the description in Appendix R, that is essentially what it is. It can be played alone or as the "engine" for any other old-school game, with that game's books serving as expansion guides. This section directly references the 1974 rules, which would equate nicely to three fantastic games:

Swords & Wizardry Revised.

White Box Fantasy Medieval Adventure Game.

And Iron Falcon.

These would be my "go-to" supplement games for DCC since they are all based on the 1974 rules. There is an apparent "back to basics" movement in the hobby, where the 1974 rules are embraced, and the later AD&D, B/X, and BECMI rules are seen as things that came after that original "spark of inspiration." Also, DCC is not a "1974 purist game" since it uses many 3.5E mechanics, such as the saving throw system. The 3.5E mechanics were very familiar to the DCC designers and play-testers, so they chose to embrace those.

S&W is my favorite of all of these, just because it eliminates a lot of unnecessary detail and cruft. It also feels fantastic for a lot of the classes, and it is unafraid to limit bonuses to classes that deserve them more than others.

However, DCC is open to expansion and is meant to be the base framework for a larger DIY game. You could expand this with Old School Essentials and have everything you need. OSE is also a good pick since the organization is top-notch, and the books are high quality and informative.

I like OSRIC since the game takes on a dire, simulation-style, realistic feeling. This is like mixing the game with AD&D; since AD&D is awesome, this becomes more awesome. You get the whole "battle of good and evil" thing going on, encumbrance rules, equipment lists, tons of magic items and treasures, exploration, hirelings, lots of monsters, and all the classic "feel good" AD&D bits in there that give me good memories. I would not directly use AD&D since the retro-clones are always better and support free and open communities.

All these games are worth playing by themselves! S&W and OSRIC are "best in class" games and two of my all-time favorites.

OSRIC plus DCC is the "ultimate OSR game" for me. It's DCC plus all the missing parts; you can customize many game rules from all the sections in the book. I like it better than S&W since there are many more optional rules and subsystems to plug in. Sages and hirelings get a lot of detail, along with treasures. S&W is a stripped-down 1974 purist game that reduces complexity. OSRIC goes into deeper levels of depth, giving me more to choose from and making my world more textured and realistic.

DCC: OSRIC as the +1 Game

OSRIC is a fantastic game. It is the best AD&D-like game out there. It was written as a reference work for the original game but with enough slight differences to be a partial copy. This started before copies of AD&D were out there to buy, and it still sits as the better version of the DTRPG print-on-demand copies that are filled with errors.

OSRIC is not just a game; it's a platform that empowers AD&D players. Its superior organization and the opportunity to contribute to the game's content provide a flexible and empowering gaming experience. This is further enhanced by a wealth of indie adventures and supplements, making it the ultimate choice for AD&D enthusiasts.

Also, you are not putting wear and tear on your collector's items.

But using OSRIC as your +1 game for Dungeon Crawl Classics is an interesting choice since the game is very detailed, has the OG vibe, and gives the experience a gritty AD&D-like feeling and hardcore atmosphere. There are a few points worth remembering in the conversion, such as DCC not using magic resistance. Also, this conversion for AC is handy:

DCC AC = 20 - ORSIC AC

The AC conversion is straightforward. For instance, an AC 6 equals a DCC AC of 20 - 6, which equals 14. Remember the 'subtracting a negative number rule' for cases like an AC of -2, which becomes a DCC AC of 20 - (-2), resulting in 22.

You could also set the "target number" for your to-hits to 20 and add the OSRIC (descending) AC (and any other attack modifiers) to the roll. Don't believe me? That OSRIC AC of 6 is a DCC AC of 14, and an attack modifier of +1 gives a 13+ on a d20, or a 40% chance to hit. The OSRIC AC of 6 with that attack modifier of +1 nets a +7 chance to strike against a target number of 20 or a 40% chance to hit.

Also, in DCC, hit dice are not always d8s. If a monster is big enough, you could bump the hit die up the dice chain to get one that works, and going down works as well. The same goes for damage or any other die the monster may use; use that die chain!

One area of trouble with OSRIC where S&W does not have it is in monster saving throws. In S&W, every monster has a single saving throw. Since DCC uses the 3.5-era Fortitude, Reflex, and Will saves, having one saving throw for all is simple. You can always modify the single save number if a monster is agile and should have a higher save in that category. In OSRIC, all monsters use fighter saving throws from the five standard categories of saving throws. You must constantly reference the fighter save chart and pick the best saving throw for the attack.

Also note DCC's saves are modifiers versus a floating target number. Old-school saves are typically a number to roll higher than on a d20. If a save versus an effect is a DC 5, you must figure out a bonus to give a monster versus a DC 10 or even DC 15. I would give a +5 for DC 5 and a -5 for DC 15.

DCC Save = (OSRIC HD / 2) + Ability Mods

Or, use the above formula to calculate the DCC Fort, Ref, and Will save. A level 10 character typically has an average of a +5 save (plus ability modifiers), so this will get you in the ballpark, and you can modify them up or down based on the monster's statistics. If you feel a monster has an 18 DEX, add +3 to their Reflex save, and so on.

Why OSRIC? I felt Swords & Wizardry was my go-to +1 game, but S&W is such a good game that it deserves to be played independently. This is nothing against OSRIC, either, and OSRIC is amazingly playable and worth being a standalone. S&W has some over-the-top pulp elements that DCC does, so the games feel "closer." OSRIC is farther away and will contrast better with DCC. In some ways, OSRIC is the better +1 game since the charts and tables in this book are some of the best in tabletop gaming.

A summary:

DCC AC = 20 - ORSIC AC

DCC Saves = (OSRIC HD / 2) + Ability Mods

DCC Hit Die Size = OSRIC HD, d6 to d12 (based on size)

DCC Attack Bonus = OSRIC HD (as a base)

S&W is a zero-edition game, too. This is more of the 1970s calling, where there were few rules for everything, and most were made up on the spot. OSRIC is more the 1980s version of the game, where playing the game felt more serious, many rules were set in stone, and there was an "official" way of playing the game. For this reason, OSRIC feels like the more "serious" game to use with DCC, and it will color the experience in a harsher, more realistic light.

Tone matters! When the fantastic happens in DCC, it will contrast more with OSRIC than with S&W. Some groups may want the lighthearted and humorous S&W combo, while others will prefer the more grounded and realistic OSRIC combo. I would use OSRIC for DCC horror games.

There is also a difference between the funky van party record's 1970s tone (which DCC embraces) and the deadly dungeon ritualistic seance 1980s tone (which it also does). Swords & Wizardry is more the former, while OSRIC is more the latter.

What I love about OSRIC, when used with DCC, is it turns the entire game into a "serious" affair, whereas S&W feels more "fast and loose," like a pulp game. OSRIC's treasure tables go into depth, and you can find a gold comb worth 8,000 gold pieces due to a treasure roll. The magic item tables have hundreds of items, with options for intelligent swords and other classic AD&D-style items. The monster lists are long and filled with the classics. There is a dungeon generation system with dungeon levels and encounters. There are random tables for both tricks and traps. You even have wilderness encounters and travel rules. One book has it all.

If DCC is the "old school tribute game" and OSRIC is "the best AD&D-style game," these two go together like peanut butter and chocolate.

DCC: What's Your +1 Game?

 

From the Dungeon Crawl Classics rulebook, page 393:

Consequently, this work does not include detailed rules for assigning treasure to monsters or encounters. The existing volume of D&D work includes several such systems which are robust and well defined, and which can be easily adapted here. The author suggests you adapt an existing treasure system of your choice, but carefully and deliberately evaluate the randomized results. Always ask yourself: “Where did the monster acquire such wealth? And what happened to the local economy in the process?”

I didn't realize this, and I may have read it, but the weight of this did not hit home until I started to think of what this paragraph means. DCC requires you to use another game to fill in the missing pieces, especially for the treasure system.

This begs the question: What game with DCC gives you the best results? Well, here are my picks:

I would go with OSRIC if I were considering magic items. This grandaddy reference guide gives you everything in the AD&D sphere in an open and accessible format. This provides a perfect "old school" flavor and retains the authenticity of a "primary source" for your games. The magic item tables here are ideal, with so many options and combinations, and it is a treat to roll them on.

OSRIC falls short on monsters since the traditional AC system is used, and you would need to convert descending AC to ascending. It is easy, but it gets a little tedious. Most of the other monster stats work fine in DCC, though.

OSRIC is the best "1e" game out there, even better than the AD&D DTRPG reprints since it has far fewer errors, and the organization and presentation are far better than my well-loved but flawed AD&D books. Don't play with your collector's AD&D books; get this, and don't look back.

If I were including monsters as a sample bestiary for my game? I would 100% use Revised Swords & Wizardry, a gem of a game with several simplifications that will make using the monsters in S&W for DCC games a breeze. First, the hit die numbers are compatible with DCC and serve as the monster's attack bonus. Done. Next, we do not use Fort, Ref, and Will saves; we get one save number, a d20-roll-or-higher one. This is good enough for most monsters, and you could always modify it if an exceptional circumstance applies. One save? Simple. Finally, S&W uses ascending AC in the same range as DCC, so we are not converting anything; we can use the AC numbers as-is.

There is also a morale system here for all monsters, so your foes may break if they are getting spell-burned and mighty-deeded off the face of the planet.

The book is excellent if you need orcs, gorgons, traditional dragons, golems, giants, or any other classic monster from the original game to appear and cause havoc. I know this is DCC; all monsters are unique! But even I occasionally like my comfort food, and seeing DCC characters thrash a cloud giant is fun.

The treasure tables here are good enough. They are less in-depth than OSRIC but are more than satisfactory for 95% of situations in a DCC game. Given the game's heroic, pulp, over-the-top, and insane feel, I would prefer a less-detailed treasure system for DCC (and more of my imagination). Also, there are guidelines for generating treasure hordes here based on monster XP, so creating treasures based on monsters is very simple and can be used for any creature. We are not messing with treasure-type tables, and that is a plus.

Since 90% of the game can be used directly with DCC as-is, Swords & Wizardry is my go-to "+1 game" for DCC. The monsters seal the deal here with how simple they are to convert, with almost no conversion needed. The things you won't be using? Classes and spells, but we have plenty of those in DCC. We are just here looking for "stuff," and S&W has tons of it, ready to use.

S&W also released two companion guides, one for options and another for foes, greatly expanding the game. The options book is mostly classes but includes new magic items, referee advice, the old-school primer, and many encounter charts. The wilderness encounter charts here make this a worthy addition.

This is a must-have book for playing S&W as a standalone game since it includes several more modern classes, such as "old school classes," for your game and fills in many of the holes of OSR systems regarding player options.

The monster book is full of monsters, over 300 and includes guidelines for creating your own. There are also fun "monster name" random charts that fit within the DCC mantra of "DIY everything!" This three-book set is an excellent game but utterly usable as a "DCC expansion" if you want more old-school content and flavor in your games.

Swords & Wizardry is one of the best-kept secrets in gaming these days. Old School Essentials is the standard-bearer, and Shadowdark is the 5E entry into the genre. DCC fills the gonzo need. Castles & Crusades is the "2.5E" we never knew we needed. But S&W is unique. It is simple. The systems are straightforward and highly optimized, with a single genius-mechanic saving throw number making everything simple (yet also highly modifiable). S&W is AD&D without all the useless and pedantic parts.

S&W is a "0e" style game and the best in class; it is all pre-AD&D but presented and organized so well that it becomes instantly playable. Alongside OSRIC, you only need to buy or worry about any other old-school game if you seek a niche or specialized experience (DCC, OSE, Without Number, etc.).

If you are coming from Shadowdark and want old-school without the complexity and an experience that is a bit more "on the metal," give S&W a try. If you have DCC and want to "spice it up" with classics from an excellent "+1 book" that adds to the game and is 90% usable, S&W is also one of your best bets. There is nothing wrong with using OSE or even Labyrinth Lord, but I find both OSRIC and S&W to be my best "+1 games" alongside DCC and excellent games as stand-alone.

Back in Stock: Dungeon Crawl Classics – Dark Tower (3-Volume Slipcased Set)

https://goodman-games.com/store/product/dungeon-crawl-classics-dark-tower-3-volume-slipcased-set/

Here is another one back in stock today, the Dark Tower 3-book slipcase for DCC. Grab this one if you missed the Kickstarter since they have a new shipment in the store.