|
Overemotional Robot posted:Hmm, maybe it was something else I was looking at then. It's driving me crazy not knowing, though. Also someone in this thread was working on a class that was basically a mech pilot? I can't find it now, though. You can't find it because I deleted it  See, the class you are thinking of was The Mechanic, and it is this week's Inverse World preview! I am trying out a new kind of format for the previews for classes - with this preview, you will be able to play a Mechanic all the way up to level 9! Of course, you can only do it by taking the exact advances I laid out, but those advances will build you Coop from Megas XLR so why wouldn't you? In addition, this week's preview introduces Hazards, which are something I think everyone's thought about but no one's codified stats for before now. See, Hazards are those things that get in your way that you need to deal with, like trapped rooms, weather hazards, and puzzle challenges. We wrote them up as monsters - no HP, no armor, but with their own instincts they follow and their own moves they can make, which should allow these hazards to function and react to the players as dynamically as a dungeon world monster does. Mikan wrote up an example hazard, here: Mikan posted:Gravity Twist Magical In addition, I've updated most of our previous previews to also be playable, like The Mechanic is. Sadly, The Sky Dancer doesn't have a playable preview version yet, because I haven't finished writing advances for it just yet. You can find our previous Inverse World content here: Inverse World Stuff posted:
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 04:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 09:41 |
|
|
gnome7 posted:You can't find it because I deleted it Gonna just take this moment to note that 'when you dramatically slam your fist on the Big Red Button' is basically the best move prompt I've ever seen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 04:53
|
|
|
gnome7 posted:You can't find it because I deleted it When you get your stuff all done I'm gonna throw money your way. Thanks for this!
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 04:53
|
|
|
Androc posted:Gonna just take this moment to note that 'when you dramatically slam your fist on the Big Red Button' is basically the best move prompt I've ever seen. "When you suddenly really don't want to be in your suit" and "When an enemy is really starting to piss you off" are both pretty great too. I can't wait for this to be finished.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 06:28
|
|
|
Fenarisk posted:Cool good to know we're back to "playing the game wrong so get out" mentality bro.  This is a conversation about what is and isn't good design when making custom content for Dungeon World. Overemotional Robot posted:I know World of Dungeons has a robot class, but I could have sworn I saw another one that somebody made for Dungeon World. Anybody have an idea of what I'm talking about? The Engine of Destruction is also published in Grim Portents, and has robot art on page 10: http://www.story-games.com/forums/discussion/18234/download-grim-portents-issue-1-here-submissions-open-for-issue-2-theme-the-wine-dark-sea Lemon-Lime fucked around with this message at 10:18 on Apr 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 07:54
|
|
|
Blasphemeral posted:--- Part 1: "Corn: The final solution." I love the setup part of DW when you get a group that's into it  Please carry on!e: Also the Mechanic is awesome, could easily be a generic-DW class if the movement types are toned down a little. I would want one in every game I GM. Boing fucked around with this message at 13:48 on Apr 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 09:50
|
|
|
Blasphemeral posted:None of us have played *World games before. Ladies and gentlemen: DUNGEON WORLD 
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 12:30
|
|
|
I just want to comment on the +1d4 Merciless fighter move being "bad." I whipped up a fighter as my first ever DW character, and I chose that option. I found the ability to do extra damage was mechanically beneficial, but it made sense to me within the character, as well. Chargen was for level 2, so the concept was a fighter that had been pretty good at his job (hired muscle on exploratory missions) and then one time something went wrong, and he more or less singlehandedly defeated an ambush, going all sorts of intense. Maybe there are other options that could have been better, but they don't exist within the figher playbook and it didn't seem to limit me. Then again, the game has barely started, so we'll see how it goes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 16:58
|
|
|
It's not that it is "bad," just "boring." Merciless is extremely mechanically effective, perhaps almost too much so. You get free extra damage, forever, and a fairly good amount of it! It's just kind of boring is all. I don't like writing moves like Merciless without adding some kind of trigger. I'd be a lot happier with Merciless if it said "When you attack someone with killing intent, deal +1d4 damage" or something. Even if the trigger is something you'll basically always do, it'd be nice to have one. That specific trigger would especially help Merciless, since it means you'd only get the bonus damage when you're actually being merciless, and not every time you hurt a dude. Sometimes you don't want to kill people, and being able to turn off the +damage would help. For an ACTUALLY bad move, look at Scent of Blood, also in the Fighter. It is almost identical to Merciless, except it has a trigger that requires you to have already damaged the enemy, and it only gives you the bonus damage on your next attack against them. This is in a class with 1d10 damage and Merciless in a system where an average enemy has about 6 HP. If you've already hurt an enemy and they've lived, another blow will probably kill them anyway, even without the bonus from Scent of Blood. It is a trap choice in a system that is almost entirely lacking in trap choices, and it disappoints me that it didn't get replaced in editing for something better.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 17:06
|
|
|
As it turns out, I took Scent of Blood 
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 17:09
|
|
|
Time for a trip report about the Improved Fighter, and where it stands in my mind. I have been playing a character named River in MadScientistWorking's Sunday night DW campaign for 12 sessions now. I am level 7. The first thing i did with my fighter, the first advanced move i took, was Multiclass Dabbler to get the Paladin's Quest. Very first thing I did. It set the pace for how, that even though my character was a fighter he had a supernatural or divine bent to him. The next 2 i took were Iron Hide and Merciless. Merciless is effective, but it does mean my character is essentially a damage freak. Iron Hide started cementing my character as hard to kill. Then i took Interrogator. Arguably one of the better moves in the fighter's list. Using STR instead of CHA for violence based parley's is amazing. And on of the better features on the fighter list. That was the first 5 levels of Improved Fighter. And mechanically it did get boring. So what did i take at level 6? Psion's Peer through the Veil using Mutliclass Initiate. I decided that supernatural was the way to go, and it definitely changed the tone of both the game and how my character did things. Im level 7 now and i just took Through Death's Eyes. Though i haven't had the chance to use it. Now for some opinions. When you want to be the guy, that takes little damage, can outright break through anything, and can best most people in combat, fighter is not a bad choice. Does that mean its terrific? Depends on how judiciously you use your multiclass features. Arguably, i think that multiclass features redeem a lot of character classes, and my honest opinion is that every class should have the option for multiclass. It shouldn't be a buffer to make a good class, but i also think that some classes that are missing it would benefit from having it. ( i played a spellslinger that could have benefitted from mutliclass ). Improved Fighter is definitely a step up from book base fighter. Is it broken or boring? Not really. But that is taking into consideration how powerful mutliclassing is. MSW also has played a bard that was essentially a multiclass focused bard. For a class that has a large emphasis on mutliclass it ends up being pretty cool too.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 17:37
|
|
|
Captain Foo posted:I just want to comment on the +1d4 Merciless fighter move being "bad." Like gnome said, it's not mechanically bad; rather, it's just worse design than the other, more interesting moves. Merciless/Bloodthirsty especially take next to zero effort to fix - rather than an unconditional +damage, they just need a trigger along the lines of "when you attack without hesitation or mercy" (or "when you battle without honour or humanity" ) and they suddenly becoming more interesting because they actually say something about your character.Talkc posted:Arguably, i think that multiclass features redeem a lot of character classes Honestly, each and every class should present something that is both mechanically and fictionally interesting and powerful - MC moves shouldn't be a cop-out. e; someone make a class that gets a damage boost triggered on "when you attack purely to knock someone out or restrain them." Lemon-Lime fucked around with this message at 19:17 on Apr 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 19:00
|
|
|
I don't think there's a problem with Merciless at all. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a simple move that gives a simple bonus. The fighter problem isn't with specific moves, with a few exceptions, but that there are lots of simple bonus moves: Merciless, Iron Hide, Improved Weapon, Seeing Red, and arguably Interrogator and Scent of Blood too, and that's just in the 2-5 moves. And yes, Scent of Blood is pretty badly written, doubly so because Merciless is just flat out better. The one fighter I played, I decided to go for a knowledgeable character and went with 16 starting Int and pushed it to 18 ASAP, instead of Str. That basically turned me into a combination skill monkey / combat monster, and it complemented nicely multiclassing Artificer. I find in DW you can do so much with basic moves, the class is more quirkiness and unique flavor than power. If you want to be good at knowledge / social, the only thing you need to do is pick your stats for that and use the basic moves. The Int fighter still could fight best in the party even at +1 Str thanks to d10+d4, 2 piercing, and the fighter's stupid high armor, and she was the one spouting all the lore to boot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 19:05
|
|
|
A mechanically simple move with a cool name that fits the class is probably worth making. Having triggers based off of mechanical effects like dealing damage are easy to remember and DW is not a game where the GM is ever supposed to play "gotcha" with triggers. If you changed Merciless to only work while you fought w/o mercy all that'd do is make everything the fighter's player said to trigger hack and slash have a perfunctory phrase in it lest the GM gotcha him out of a move. That's not supposed to happen but the specific move would seem to trump the general rule, even though dealing damage to something is always acting with lethal force with the intent to kill and destroy. Likewise with "trap choices," that's kind of a holdover from D&D charop where every choice starting from chargen has opportunity costs and if you make a bad choice you fall behind the power curve or waste your turn or shut yourself out of some better choice later and have lost the game. That doesn't happen in DW, so why let it inform the metagame. I think that the Fighter playbook might reveal some design ideas through its simplicity. You pointed out that Merciless is mechanically better than Scent of Blood, but the latter is "cooler" mechanically than Merciless. It has a trigger that you have to think about to activate and everything. But it's a "bad move" because it's mechanically inferior to another advanced move. Assume that's intended. Why would they make those two moves and put them right next to each other? Perhaps, if a player wants to do more damage, the first extra damage move is complimentary: you get Merciless, your wish is granted, don't adjust your play style or anything. However, if you want to do even more damage, you have to take moves that are incrementally more complex. This is good design because the game guides them into putting more effort into it and taking more risks to get what they want. That's how it comes alive during play. For example, Damagelover the fighter has taken SOB, and whiffs his first Hack and Slash against an enemy, takes a bunch of damage, and loses his position. Now he's out of range and hurt, getting back into range is risky, he might take damage from that, and then when he closes he might even just roll a shallow hit take damage again and be toast. But Damagelover bought that extra damage and will try to trigger it. Maybe he'll borrow a ranged weapon or ask for aid or healing or just rush back in like a lunatic. Say the party runs away. His player, if he really loves damage, will write the boss's name on his character sheet and remember to deal more damage to him later. Because he made him smell blood. Say Damagelover finds another enemy asleep and autodamages it. He doesn't get SOB. I tell him "You don't want to be fed, you want to hunt." That wasn't written in the move itself, because it's meant to come to life at the table. That's why it's a good move, and good design. Kind of as an aside, the "trap choice" analysis doesn't hold up. Scent of Blood triggers against enemy groups, and it persists between fights if either of you runs away and heals up, which happens. You're right that there exists a situation where it is not very helpful, but that situation--a Conga line of ungrouped one-shottable monsters, no items, Final Destination--is not the whole game, and only likely exists if someone wants to hose the fighter out of one move. Don't get me wrong, I loved the Mage and like to read most of the books here and offer them to players, but they're not necessarily better designed, because complex mechanics and baking flavor into the moves doesn't mean better design. It means it's more fun to read when you're not playing the game. I respect that, and appreciate it because I don't always get to play the game. But it's sort of ancillary to the real purpose of writing a new class. It's like planting a community garden, some bring seeds and some bring potted plants. If one player brings seeds, they look boring and vague, but they could do whatever the heck they want, I don't know what's going to sprout. If they bring a potted plant, it looks cooler than seeds but chances are I know mostly what they're gonna be up to, and expect things turn out a certain way. But DW tells you to play to find out what happens, so when I see a bunch of custom class moves with baked in flavor and lots of "choose the tag every time you use this move" mechanics I get the feeling the players and I kind of already know what's going to happen. It's gonna be one of these three things. Probably the mechanically strongest one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 19:07
|
|
|
If multiclassing is needed to redeem a class then doesn't that mean the class isn't interesting enough to stand on its own? I'm fine with the 'Worldly' style multiclassing because that explicitly prevents you from stepping into other player's territory, but it still seems like if your class isn't interesting and significant enough to have another cool move instead of "take a cool move from another class", maybe your class isn't cool and interesting enough to warrant playing? I don't see why the Fighter couldn't have had more moves about being a big badass instead of multiclassing for any reason other than "it's kind of like extra feats in D&D". I'm kind of torn on this because on one hand you can do some pretty neat things with multiclassing to make a cool kind of variant of a class, but it really shouldn't be what defines your class. I definitely think there should be simple classes and I think the Fighter fits that pretty well, but I kind of feel like that should be the Fighter's thing. Maybe you just want to be a big buff dude who punches dragons in the face and doesn't care about getting stabbed three times in a row, and if so well hot drat you're gonna love the Fighter! That is the Fighter's cool thing, not being able to read minds on the side or summon demons or something. There might be an argument that the Fighter doesn't do his cool thing very well or that his cool thing is too basic for most players, but he does his cool thing, he does it in a way that some players definitely enjoy, and it's pretty hard to argue that he doesn't do it effectively given how ridiculously high his damage and defense is. I think the Fighter's really solid, but he covers the niche for 'extremely basic class', so when making new classes we have to branch out from there. This doesn't make the Fighter a bad class, it just makes other classes more complex. If there's any problem I have with the Fighter it's more with the Improved Fighter, turning him from "really good at fighting but still subject to the dice" to "hahah nope the enemy will never make an attack unless I roll 6- on Battle Instincts, which I will probably follow with another Battle Instincts roll once I get done with that consequence". Maybe that's just me though. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 19:40
|
|
|
If the fighter's abusing Battle Instincts, then it's time to have him fight unworthy foes. Have him fight a dragon's fire storm or a muskateer's insults. And he can't just retrigger the move...it activates on your turn.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 19:59
|
|
|
I actually really like those kinds of hazards to throw against a Fighter like that and I'll keep that in mind, but I'm not sure what you mean by turn. On a 6- something bad happens and since the move doesn't say what it is that just means 'make a hard move', but once that's over with if they're still capable of doing anything they can just roll Battle Instincts again. Since it's a hold generating move the only threat in rolling 7-9 is having to roll to generate more hold sooner. So long as they're not being crushed in the troll's grip, they can totally just deflect his club and entirely negate the whole move, not just the damage.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 20:05
|
|
|
Lemon Curdistan posted:The Engine of Destruction is also published in Grim Portents, and has robot art on page 10: http://www.story-games.com/forums/discussion/18234/download-grim-portents-issue-1-here-submissions-open-for-issue-2-theme-the-wine-dark-sea This is it! Thank you so much, that was driving me crazy!
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 20:41
|
|
|
Thanks to the advice from everybody who provided it, here is the very first draft of my custom class idea: the Zealot! Inspired by the Avenger from D&D 4E and the Inquisitor from Pathfinder, this guy is less concerned with saving or protecting the weak and more about bringing divine retribution to enemies. Feedback is encouraged heartily. The Zealot v1
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 21:20
|
|
|
It's a little later than I would have liked due to art delays, but man I am so happy with the cover art I ended up with that I don't even care. The Witch is now available for sale! There is also a preview edition within the link that takes you up through level 9, if you want to look before you buy. Enjoy!
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 21:31
|
|
|
For the Zealot, why are the weapons a fine bow and a rapier? It should be a cruel blade of some kind. Also, this isn't significantly different or better than a Paladin with a relevant quest. In fact, with the 1d10 hit die, it's worse. The first starting move only lets you get out of trouble that you create; unless you're creating an Inquisitional party in a civic campaign, you wouldn't get to use it very much. I'm also interested in the fact your class has an advance move making you immune to death. That'd be ridiculously overpowered. Why the zealot and not a cleric or a paladin?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 22:18
|
|
|
Golden Bee posted:For the Zealot, why are the weapons a fine bow and a rapier? It should be a cruel blade of some kind. You can be a Zealot for a good god. Just because you're really into your god's teachings doesn't mean you're out making sacrifices out of everything that moves. A jagged ritual blade or something might be good as an extra choice, but the current gear seems fine.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 22:33
|
|
|
I'm not so sure about the Favoured Enemy mechanic in Heretics. It pretty much makes you gimped for most of the campaign unless the GM tailors it to your specific character - which is more likely to happen in DW than in other systems, but it's still more restricting than the open-ended class system should be really.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 23:27
|
|
|
Wahad posted:Thanks to the advice from everybody who provided it, here is the very first draft of my custom class idea: the Zealot! Inspired by the Avenger from D&D 4E and the Inquisitor from Pathfinder, this guy is less concerned with saving or protecting the weak and more about bringing divine retribution to enemies. Feedback is encouraged heartily. The rapier is nice choice for a weapon, but swap the bow for a flintlock pistol or at least some type of crossbow, so you can pretend to be Solomon Kane or a Warhammer fantasy witch-hunter. Also make sure that the look lists include a puritan hat and a trenchcoat when you get around to them. Edit: Whoops. I noticed that it's choose one weapon, not get both. The point that crossbows/flintlocks seem like a more flavorful choice for this type of class still stands though. Oo Koo fucked around with this message at 23:40 on Apr 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 23:31
|
|
|
Talkc posted:MSW also has played a bard that was essentially a multiclass focused bard. For a class that has a large emphasis on mutliclass it ends up being pretty cool too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 23:54
|
|
|
gnome7 posted:It's a little later than I would have liked due to art delays, but man I am so happy with the cover art I ended up with that I don't even care. That cover is pretty friggin' sweet. That's one copy you've just sold.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2013 00:06
|
|
|
Boing posted:I'm not so sure about the Favoured Enemy mechanic in Heretics. It pretty much makes you gimped for most of the campaign unless the GM tailors it to your specific character - which is more likely to happen in DW than in other systems, but it's still more restricting than the open-ended class system should be really. Opening up that aspect of the class might make it more broadly applicable: Fanatic When an enemy breaks or rejects the tenets of your faith, you may declare them a Heretic of your faith. That opens up the choices a little bit more and allows the character to play nice with party members and regular civilizations. It would be a very cool thing for you to provide a list of names and domains (mix and match) to fit the style of the game, as it would decrease the drag to getting started with the playbook. It would also be boss to include a few tenets or commandments upon which a Zealot might hang their faith: All Must Refrain from taking ________'s Name in Vain The Messengers of ________ Must Humble Themselves Before Women Beggars are Holy, Their Suffering Redeems Us None Shall Harm a Child, Upon Pain of Death A good tenet would be something that sometimes puts them in conflict with social norms, and gives the player choices to make. Another thought: It seems like many of the class features hang on the idea of trying to declare other creatures and NPC heretics, but there doesn't seem to be a fictional constraint on doing so. Maybe by opening up the ability to declare heretics, you can adjust some of the moves to show social consequences to these actions, as currently, being a Heretic is only a disadvantage in combat. There are about 10 moves that give combat advantages against Heretics. There are only a couple that do anything socially. Ideas for social moves/advantages: starting a cult/inquisition, converting, preaching, temp boost to CHA (suffused with holy fervor?), parley against multiple targets (mass conversion?), converting a town and gaining social standing... and so on. Shamblercow fucked around with this message at 00:35 on Apr 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2013 00:26
|
|
|
Well, I think the arguing over multiclassing is really interesting and probably the results of two of the system's strengths butting heads. Namely, flexibility smashing headlong into the specificity and beauty of class (AW's revival of the concept through the "playbook" really resonated with me for some reason). So, your opinion on whether MC sucks or not probably depends on whether you give primacy to playbook purity or flexibility. Personally, I love the playbook concept, but I think the possibility to multi-class should be there in most cases (though, as Lemon Curdistan said, it shouldn't be something you require to make the class good). People will use it or not and choose appropriate moves or not, but that's something that I think is better hashed out at the table than necessarily mandated by me. It's not wholly a holdover from Dungeons and Dragons, either - "Take a move from another playbook" has been baked in to the * World games from the very beginning.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2013 00:34
|
|
|
Yo Shamblercrow, got somethin' for ya' THE CONVICT http://www.mediafire.com/view/?f9loce988jnqvju It's a little cramped for my taste but whadya want for 20 minutes in Inkscape. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2013 01:00
|
|
|
It might be beyond the scope of current discussion, but multi-class moves seem like they add a nice level of complexity for system experts, without unacceptably increasing the difficulty for beginners. The playbook as it is really reduces the friction that keeps new players from getting started in the game. Most of the playbooks have lists of options and choices for anything the player might need to start; everything they need to play the game is on their move sheets and their playbook. Once players have the basic moves down and understand how the playbook is organized and structured, they can experience the breadth of the system by just switching playbooks. As a player, you never have to reference anything else. It's a wonderfully modular and streamlined system in that way. Multi-class moves in this system are the next step of that modularity in that they make each move a separate block. I think the real advantage of moves like Worldly as opposed to basic Multiclass Dabbler is that they reduce the amount of material the player can access and therefore decrease the amount of decision making for the player. The only tricky thing is that to a new player, Worldly is going to require them to look at the other playbooks that aren't in use. They won't have heard other players using or referring to those moves, because those classes aren't at the table. It increases the cognitive load for those players, but in an acceptable way, because multiclass options don't pop up until level two, when the player has already gained a little experience. Fenarisk posted:Yo Shamblercrow, got somethin' for ya' 
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2013 01:01
|
|
|
RE: Battle Instincts. Any GM with someone running Improved Fighter has to be absolutely on top of the "worthy enemies" clause. In Supreme Court's game, I was only popping it once or twice per battle, and only against big obvious boss monsters, and I still felt it was way too strong. I think it'd work better as something like "Tactical Mastery: At the beginning of a fight, when you analyze the situation and apply your knowledge of combat..." as the prompt. That way there's a limit to the usage per combat, although it can be applied in any fight, as is fitting and proper for a master of armed combat. It also requires them to have to think for a second, which could prompt Defy Danger rolls if you really wanted to ratchet up the tension. I'd also set it so that a 6 is specified to just not work, rather than trigger a hard move. If the utility's decreased, there's no sense in letting someone slap the hell out of your player just 'cause.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2013 01:03
|
|
|
Fenarisk posted:Yo Shamblercrow, got somethin' for ya' Be sure to add 'Riddick' to the name list. This could be a very, very fun playbook for the right campaign.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2013 01:05
|
|
|
InfiniteJesters posted:Be sure to add 'Riddick' to the name list. Oh hey look at that I left the names and look spot blank damnit. I'm not home at the moment, I finished it last night and just remotely popped up the link. I'll try to finalize it properly tomorrow. Also for the playbook symbol I'm taking suggestions because I was thinking shackles but that's really hard to do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2013 01:06
|
|
|
Guys, I applied the design philosophy we've been discussing. Did I do it right? The Kender "I'm just borrowing it!" Names: Tasselhoff, Bufflemuff, Tiddlywinks, Fruitthrow, Bearchase, Buttercup, Peanut Look Twinkling eyes, Merry eyes, Sociopathic eyes Long hair, Pixie cut, or Topknot Wiry body, chubby body, or athletic body Stats Your maximum HP is 6+Constitution Your base damage is d6 Starting Moves You start with the following moves: Fearless When you throw yourself into physical or social danger without regard for your well-being, take +1 forward. "It Must have Fallen into my Pocket!" When you try to steal the personal possession of someone you know, take +1 to the roll. Taunt When you Taunt an enemy in combat, stand up at the table, blurt out the taunt in real life in a Kender voice, and roll +Cha. On a 10+, the enemy targets you and is made incautious by their rage - take +1 ongoing to your rolls against them until they get it together. On a 7-9, the enemy focuses its attention upon you, but is less incautious, more "really pissed." I Just Don't Understand When your childlike curiousity produces social or physical conflict, mark XP. Naturally Inquisitive When you Discern Realities, hit or miss, you may ask one additional question of your choice. This question must be inane, but you still take +1 forward if you can manage to act on the answer. Innocent When someone accuses you of thievery, take +1 ongoing against and do +1 damage to them. Gear Your load is 6+Str. Choose your gear last. You start with Dungeon Rations (5 uses, 1 weight), a Healing Potion (1 use, 0 weight), and an item of your choice from someone else's character sheet. Choose your clothing: -Traveling Clothes (0 weight) -Leather Armor (1 Armor, 1 weight) Choose your armament: -Rapier (close, precise, 2 weight) and Shield (+1 Armor) -Hoopak (close, reach, near, far, 2 weight) and Sling stones (3 ammo, 1 weight) Advanced Moves Irrelevant, choosing this class should get you booted from the game. That Rough Beast fucked around with this message at 01:23 on Apr 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2013 01:11
|
|
|
Hahahahaha gently caress you 
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2013 01:14
|
|
|
That Rough Beast posted:Guys, I applied the design philosophy we've been discussing. Did I do it right? Best post in the thread, hands down.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2013 01:37
|
|
|
It's been about a month since I wrote and posted The Medic, has anyone here used it or seen it in play? My own DW game has been on hiatus while we play Apocalypse World, so I haven't gotten any first-hand accounts of how the class is working out. If anyone has any notes for me, I'd appreciate it!
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2013 03:15
|
|
|
Elmo Oxygen posted:It's been about a month since I wrote and posted The Medic, has anyone here used it or seen it in play? My own DW game has been on hiatus while we play Apocalypse World, so I haven't gotten any first-hand accounts of how the class is working out. If anyone has any notes for me, I'd appreciate it! I hadn't looked at it before, but now that I have, I may use a Multiclass move to scoop up Autopsy for my Templar.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2013 03:33
|
|
|
I know the defacto answer is probably "Campaign Cartographer", but is there any other good (best if free) mapping software that can create randomized world maps or terrain? I'm wanting at least a base continent for my hex-crawl styled DW game coming up soon but the thought of loading up and re-learning CC3 after a few years is kind of daunting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2013 03:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 09:41 |
|
|
I've used Dwarf Fortress to spit out a world map in the past.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2013 03:38
|
|