|
Prowave Tierdash posted:So last session the wizard in my game started getting weird, invasive nightmares from an obvious malefic presence (I won't say what since this player reads these boards!), so he decides to cast a ritual to set a trap in his mind while he sleeps for whatever keeps haunting him. When I tell him he can do this, but he exposes himself to a direct confrontation with this entity in his dreams, he asks if he can bring the party along and lo and behold we suddenly have an inception adventure. This kind of thing would never happen in D&D, Dungeon World rocks so hard. Next session of the game I'm playing in will involve going into another party member's head to try and kill some kind of spectral parasite, so I'll be sure to forward this along.
|
#
?
May 7, 2013 21:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 05:44 |
|
|
Rasamune posted:I know you changed it already and what I'm about to say no longer applies here, but I gotta say that it really rubs me the wrong way when DW moves have such obscure and convoluted triggers like this one — ones that make the player think "okay, well, how do I even begin to do that in the fiction". No, there's a serious difference between these two cases. Arcane Art is problematic because "a spell" has several meanings. This is not the case for the old version of Translocation, which has very specific instructions for exactly what you need to do, written in plain English. Actually, if there's a criticism to be levelled at it, it's that "step back into a space co-extant with reality" needs to be moved out of the trigger, so it would be "when you visualise your destination, close your eyes and step back, you step into a space co-extant with reality" since that is an effect rather than a part of the move trigger. Rasamune posted:which I think would have been a lot better as "When you perform a song or dance of praise or encouragement" or something like that. Except that's not what Arcane Art is about. Really, it should have been "when you weave an artistic performance into your magic" or something. Lemon-Lime fucked around with this message at 21:32 on May 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2013 21:24
|
|
|
Lemon Curdistan posted:Except that's not what Arcane Art is about. Really, it should have been "when you weave an artistic performance into your magic" or something. That's kind of just as vague as the original arcane art. I like the Rasamune thing because it cuts out the only mention of real magic from the Bard's starting moves, other than one of the lore options. Makes it less "I'm a magician that sings" and more "I know a bunch of poo poo and that's pretty damned powerful".
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2013 22:37
|
|
|
KillerQueen posted:That's kind of just as vague as the original arcane art. Vague isn't the problem with the original. Vague is good. Half the point is that the GM then turns around and goes "but how are you doing that?" and then you get to describe what exactly is involved in turning your music into magic.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2013 22:52
|
|
|
Wait, if vague is good, why define that it has to be a magical effect at all?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2013 23:03
|
|
|
I always wanted more performance based moves in the Bard - moves about evoking emotions, convincing performances, lost tales with little kernels of truth. A lot of the really cool things I've seen come out of the bard in my game has not been attached to a bard move.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2013 23:05
|
|
|
Bard songs being magic is one of those dumb D&D things that got carried over for some weird reason. The move works fine, if not better, just by removing the mention of magic from the name and trigger. Your music is cool by itself and shouldn't need magic.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 00:29
|
|
|
Lemon Curdistan posted:Actually, if there's a criticism to be levelled at it, it's that "step back into a space co-extant with reality" needs to be moved out of the trigger, so it would be "when you visualise your destination, close your eyes and step back, you step into a space co-extant with reality" since that is an effect rather than a part of the move trigger. This is pretty much what I'm saying. The way I see it, when you have a fantastic move like this, you want to phrase it like "when you do X, fantastic thing Y happens; roll +blah", or "when you do X, roll +yackety; on 10+, fantastic thing Y happens", or "you can do fantastic thing X; when you do, roll +hoofty". If you say "when you do fantastic thing X", without first establishing that you can just do it, it may imply to the reader that first they have to figure out how to do fantastic thing X. It's more of a concern about how and when information is relayed to the player than about the complexity of the language used.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 00:54
|
|
|
So I made a thing. I am an expert with neither page design nor Dungeon World. I generally don't like theorycrafting, and having not played DW, I'm really reticent to share my creations. However, I'd like to get the layout set up for my Grim Portents 3 submissions. As such, here is my first Compendium Class (not for GP3). (Hacked the layout from the official DW character sheets.) I present, the Harbinger The idea is that the GM / player can read the fluff on the left to get a sense of the CC. However, once they hand it off to the player, some of that fluff becomes irrelevant, so the player can cut the right side off an append it to their playbook. Thoughts and feedback (on the layout more than the CC design, though both are welcome) greatly appreciated. Thank you!
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 18:00
|
|
|
CitizenKeen posted:So I made a thing. I am an expert with neither page design nor Dungeon World. I generally don't like theorycrafting, and having not played DW, I'm really reticent to share my creations. However, I'd like to get the layout set up for my Grim Portents 3 submissions. As such, here is my first Compendium Class (not for GP3). (Hacked the layout from the official DW character sheets.) On the visual design front, I would bring the Trigger section over to the top-right, I actually missed it completely for a minute when I was reading over the sheet, and it looks kind of awkward being down there by itself since it makes the left side completely packed while there's still room on the right. It also goes against the ideal of having the example on the left and the more mechanical bits on the right. As for the actual CC, I don't know why someone would take it. The base move makes Last Breath even harder on the player than it already is, Haunted Gaze and Dance with Death (if both taken) make the player roll CHA for failing a CHA roll, and the Carouse move comes up so rarely (at least in my own group's play) that I wouldn't really bother using an advanced move with a heavy drawback for it.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 06:03
|
|
|
Yeah, agreed with all of those, pretty much. With the layout, you might put the trigger at the top left, or even top right, it looks strange where it is. As for the rest, the concept behind the CC is evocative enough, but people won't choose it if it is mechanically prohibitive. Specifically, Doomed should give you something. I'll have to think about specific changes later, but at the moment you might consider making 6- less punitive. Maybe you know your destined end, so you can't die before then, but on a miss Death returns you to life with a charge you have to fulfill. Perhaps add a "when you act to fulfill a deal with Death, take +1 ongoing" to make it more attractive. Haunted Gaze Functional, but not particularly useful. Almost anything you're defending against is going to be a mortal threat, and it's the rare character that's going to be some sort of a Charisma tank. I wouldn't be tempted to take this move in lieu of a playbook move. Dance with Death Seems like it will work okay, but it's going to trigger fairly often, could get old fast. For Tomorrow We Die Needs work. It would still be a fairly weak move if it was just a static +1 to the Carouse roll, but the 6- result being even more harsh makes it a clunker. It's particularly bad when you realize that you can get a +1 on the Carouse roll by spending an extra 100 coin. Knowing that, who would waste a move slot on this to potentially get a worse effect? Remember, one of the idiosyncracies of the *world games are that they're so dependent upon the playbook/move style. While I am not the grand poobah of playbooks, let me just say that philosophically, the moves need to be stuff that people will choose as a bonus (that is, mechanically sound) before they are a narrative reflection of the character. No one is going to choose to intentionally cripple their character with a CC when they could just take a move from their playbook. There's a place for a cursed and tormented hero in Dungeon World, but I don't think great success awaits by trying to render that mechanically through the move structure.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 09:41
|
|
|
That Rough Beast posted:Knowing that, who would waste a move slot on this to potentially get a worse effect? Some players just want to watch the world burn  On another note I really like the layout and the "cut out and keep" style of this CC, wouldn't mind seeing more like it!
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 11:50
|
|
|
Thank you for the feedback! Layout I'll try to make trigger more visible. My thought was (and continues to be) that you need to know what the trigger is to take the Compendium Class, but once you have the CC, you don't need to know what the trigger is. And while there's room on the right for it, I'm aiming for something unified, and some CCs are longer than others. Harbinger Valid points with regards to Doomed, I'll tinker with that. (This is why I hate theorycrafting without having played the game.) I'll also clarify the "mortal" threat, I hadn't really thought of it as a term of art. I meant not that the threat was to your mortality, but rather, the threat was mortal (I don't know if that came across). So you can't defend with CHA against undead, or golems, or avalanches, etc. I'll tinker with For Tomorrow We Die, but with regards to that move and the comment about the "Charisma tank," I think a lot of design space in Compendium Classes exists for corner cases. If it was always better than a playbook move, that's bad design. That's what led to the lovely prestige class glut of 3.X. I think there's plenty of room for CCs that are "worse" choices than the playbooks for a majority of characters, but as long as there're a few scenarios where it's better, the CC can stand on its own. Are most "tanks," in WoW/4E parlance, going to put more points into Constitution than Charisma? Absolutely. But some parties will have a valiant character with a higher Charisma than their Constitution. So I think there's room. That being said, I do think the "buy in" of Doomed needs to be better. I'll update the layout and maybe make a change or three to the crunch, and update later. Thank you kindly!
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 15:12
|
|
|
That Rough Beast posted:There's a place for a cursed and tormented hero in Dungeon World, but I don't think great success awaits by trying to render that mechanically through the move structure. It actually owns as a move, though. While a curse or torment is a bad thing, it can be a good thing in terms of the narrative in that it pushes things along. The Warlock has a move where you sell your soul wholly to your Patron - which is an awful, awful thing - but it makes you less likely to die since your Patron will deal with the reaper on your behalf. The Warlock has a few moves like that actually since it's all about bargaining with your soul and how much you're willing to condemn yourself. You could easily have moves like When you are confronted with a clear sign of your inevitable doom, roll +stat and find some kind of meaning in the reminder When you would die before you've suffered your horrible fate, change up how Last Breath works When you fulfill a part of the prophecy and turn against your allies in a time of need, roll +stat and on a 10+ your allies get bonuses as they work against you but on a 7-9 pick 1, on a 6- oh no bad things pick 2, and the things you pick from are the repercussions of your betrayal Those are just off the top of my head and they obviously aren't full moves but you could totally have a Doomed, Awful, Cursed, Tormented compendium class that still offers benefits and has moves that drive the narrative in a positive or interesting way.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 15:20
|
|
|
I'm messing about with a class done for chuckles' sake, The Fool. A lot of the moves are about causing mishap and mayhem and just bumbling through. I'm also wondering if the Calamity mechanic of filling in squares will be fun.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 15:20
|
|
|
Oh no, please no! People who play jester characters are always the worst. Whatever you do, don't give them a Kender racial move.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 16:34
|
|
|
Mikan posted:It actually owns as a move, though. While a curse or torment is a bad thing, it can be a good thing in terms of the narrative in that it pushes things along. The Warlock has a move where you sell your soul wholly to your Patron - which is an awful, awful thing - but it makes you less likely to die since your Patron will deal with the reaper on your behalf. The Warlock has a few moves like that actually since it's all about bargaining with your soul and how much you're willing to condemn yourself. Just want to reiterate this: just because the in-fiction narrative is clear on something being a Bad Thing, it doesn't mean it can't be interesting or have mechanical bonuses attached. It's all about how you do things. Say you're playing a CC that is all about wielding a cursed sword. The sword drives you to bloodlust, and those who know you wield it mistrust you. How can this possibly be a good thing? Combat bonuses are easy, but maybe leverage in social situations too ("I am a man with a cursed sword, do you really want to argue with me for long?") and even that the weapon cannot be lost or destroyed by any means, like a specialized signature weapon. In the fiction the character is doomed to drag a cursed weapon around which will overtake him when he loses control (rolls a miss). That doesn't have to translate into overly negative mechanics.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 16:45
|
|
|
madadric posted:I'm messing about with a class done for chuckles' sake, The Fool. I was kind of reluctant to look this over because the jester archetype is always so weirdly creepy, but this looks like a lot of fun. I like the idea of a somewhat pathetic character who was "just trying to help" messing up everything and failing forward all day, while out of game everyone knows that they're eventually getting a benefit out of it all. Along those lines, though, I might tighten up the choices on Foolproof. "Everyone understands their role in the plan" is weirdly worded so that your mere involvement can baffle somebody else out of position. This is really the kind of class that asks that you, specifically, do most of the screwing up. Outside of that, I'm not really sure which ones are the starting moves but that's pretty easily fixed.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 17:15
|
|
|
CitizenKeen posted:I'll tinker with For Tomorrow We Die, but with regards to that move and the comment about the "Charisma tank," I think a lot of design space in Compendium Classes exists for corner cases. If it was always better than a playbook move, that's bad design. That's what led to the lovely prestige class glut of 3.X. I think there's plenty of room for CCs that are "worse" choices than the playbooks for a majority of characters, but as long as there're a few scenarios where it's better, the CC can stand on its own. Are most "tanks," in WoW/4E parlance, going to put more points into Constitution than Charisma? Absolutely. But some parties will have a valiant character with a higher Charisma than their Constitution. So I think there's room. The problem is more with the idea of making a move that just changes the stat on a basic move. There are some cases like the Mechanic where one or more basic moves are shifted onto one stat to make the stat spread less painful, and while it might give the Mechanic a bit much to do it all makes sense and exists for the purpose of making the class not a giant loving mess that requires a bunch of stats or a move for each individual combat device to replace several basic moves. Moves that replace the stat used for basic moves exist to create space for classes like the Mechanic without needing to make several different replacements for the basic moves, but they should be used sparingly. They're not interesting by themselves (there is nothing terribly compelling about just using Charisma for my Defend stat), and sometimes they just don't make sense. Even the stat referenced here doesn't make sense to me; it should be Wisdom for past experiences and scars, not Charisma for force of personality. I'm all for goofy ways to incorporate Charisma into classes, but making it a flat replacement for a basic move in a Compendium Class just seems weird, like you're forcing it too hard. Looking at another case for a solid basic move replacement, the Fighter's Interrogator is a case of replacing one of the basic moves with a different stat. However, it only applies when using physical violence as leverage, so if the Fighter finds himself needing to be a bit more tactful with the runaway princess he might not want to use this. It makes perfect sense fictionally (using brute strength to intimidate someone into doing something for you) and is an interesting and conditional move instead of being a flat replacement. Its condition is also easy to meet, so it doesn't end up being too situational to bother taking.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 17:27
|
|
|
Rulebook Heavily posted:cursed sword In fact, let's do this. I know there's a Cursed Knight already but hey. Cursed Champion When you willingly take up a cursed weapon which will ultimately destroy you and that which you hold dear, you must take the following move. Accursed Weapon Your weapon is inextricably bonded to you. You may put it away, but it will always appear at your side. When you reach for a weapon in times of danger, the cursed weapon will appear in your hand as if by its own will no matter where you left it. It can never be permanently lost or destroyed by any means. If you have any move which considers a weapon to be signature or specialized to your character, those bonuses transfer to the cursed weapon. When you take this move, you also take the Struggle move. Struggle Create a bond with your Cursed Weapon: "(My Weapon) and I are locked in struggle". At any time, you may roll +Bond with your weapon to cause your weapon to Interfere with your tasks. If the interference causes you to fail, mark XP. If the roll is a miss, the weapon lashes out at those around you and cannot aid or interfere with you until you Make Camp. If the weapon is exposed to danger or cost as a result of this roll, you suffer it instead. Once you have taken Accursed Weapon, the following moves may be taken instead of an advance: Unheeding Bloodlust When you Hack and Slash with your cursed weapon, on a hit, in addition to the normal effects, you may deal +1d6 damage but you take +1d4 damage from the next attack against you. On 10+, this additional damage ignores armor. Dark Accord (Replaces Struggle) When you take this move, you forge a pact with your cursed weapon's dark will. Resolve your current Bond with your weapon (without marking XP) and gain the following Bond: "(My Weapon) and I are united in purpose." At any time, you may roll +Bond with your weapon to cause it to aid or interfere with you in a task, whispering dark advice in a voice only you hear. If you roll a miss, it cannot aid or interfere with you again until you Make Camp. If the weapon's interference causes you to fail a task, Mark XP. If the weapon is exposed to danger or cost as a result of this roll, you suffer it instead. Pariah When the legend of your cursed weapon and its current wielder is known to those you or your allies parley with, you automatically have leverage on them. I'm sure this can be vastly improved, but I'd play this. e: in fact I have already edited. I am a monster. Rulebook Heavily fucked around with this message at 19:51 on May 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 17:29
|
|
|
Myself, I've been trying out moves that are double-edged swords with the Poltergeist class. The gist of their Poltergeist Effect move is that it lets the Poltergeist bring in dream effects into the real world--more flexible physics, creepy sights and sounds, whole environments on particularly effective manifestations. However, the move triggers when they slip into a trance or fall asleep, so while they can use it voluntarily it can also go off when they don't want it to. I haven't been working on DW stuff too much the past couple of weeks because things are just crazy-hectic around here. I'll see if I can't come up with something presentable, at least as a start, though.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 17:57
|
|
|
Someone on G+ posted a really nice campaign playbook. I wish I'd finished mine first. https://plus.google.com/112258979021033246325/posts/Zv19cVz8uMb
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 17:58
|
|
|
EscortMission posted:I was kind of reluctant to look this over because the jester archetype is always so weirdly creepy, but this looks like a lot of fun. I like the idea of a somewhat pathetic character who was "just trying to help" messing up everything and failing forward all day, while out of game everyone knows that they're eventually getting a benefit out of it all. Good advice on 'Fool'Proof. I'm still considering which moves to make the starting moves and which will live in Advanced. Perhaps the following: quote:Fool’s Fortune
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 18:06
|
|
|
Rulebook Heavily posted:In fact, let's do this. I know there's a Cursed Knight already but hey. This is very well done, I only have a few wording nitpicks. Unheeding Bloodlust: Make it "on a hit" instead of on 7-9, since you add to the 7-9 on 10+, "on a hit" is the correct way to phrase that. For Dark Accord, I'd make it: "When you take this move, you forge a pact with your cursed weapon's dark will. Resolve your current bond with your weapon and add the following bond:" Unless your intention was for you to keep making or breaking accords with your weapon. Trigger needs to be clear.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 19:26
|
|
|
Are moves that trigger when things happen to you, versus when you actively do things, considered a no-no? I had a move idea that triggered when an ally Defended you, but I wasn't sure if that was too passive.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 19:31
|
|
|
sentrygun posted:The problem is more with the idea of making a move that just changes the stat on a basic move. There are some cases like the Mechanic where one or more basic moves are shifted onto one stat to make the stat spread less painful, and while it might give the Mechanic a bit much to do it all makes sense and exists for the purpose of making the class not a giant loving mess that requires a bunch of stats or a move for each individual combat device to replace several basic moves. Hmm. Like I said, I haven't played Dungeon World yet, so maybe there's something I'm missing. But I don't know that I agree with you. First, Haunted Gaze is entirely about force of personality. It's meant to represent that trope of the hero whose eyes stop others in their tracks. I think there's a lot of fluff there, and while you may not find it compelling, I don't know that others won't. Second, there's tons of Stat replacement in DW, and I think "defending against an enemy who can die" as a situational replacement stat move is relatively limited. While not as limited as the Fighter's Interrogator (use violence) or Fighter/Dwarf (drink to switch Parley), it's much more limited (situationally harder to use) than Logical (describe how you're Sherlock) or Mechanical Suit (only when you're in your suit, which in my experience with games involving power suits is almost all the time, and can replace two basic moves). Haunted Gaze only applies when you can stare somebody down. A "force of personality" that overwhelms a threat of future violence. It's situationally useful (a GM in a DW campaign can throw all kinds of non-mortal enemies at the heroes, and make all kinds of moves that don't involve those kinds of attacks), while still being common enough to be useful. And not only that, but it's a Compendium Class with a specific context, as opposed to a base class which is meant to highlight numerous archetypes. I reserve the right to change my mind once I've seen DW in action (ugh, I hate saying that), and I recognize some of the other moves are weak/boring, but I don't know that I'm swayed by the argument with regards to Haunted Gaze. But as always, thank you for taking the time to offer feedback. It is appreciated.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 19:31
|
|
|
TheDemon posted:This is very well done, I only have a few wording nitpicks. Done and done, though I added a note that you don't mark XP just for gaining the move and resolving the bond. It's already a mark XP move so I feel that's fair, aside from the oddity of gaining XP for taking a move.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 19:36
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:Are moves that trigger when things happen to you, versus when you actively do things, considered a no-no? I had a move idea that triggered when an ally Defended you, but I wasn't sure if that was too passive. Having them be when you're affected by something like being swarmed by overwhelming odds, or even being the target of magic for an example that exists in the book, is fine. I'm not too sure about being the target of Defend though, since now you're relying on another player to make a move just for you to be able to make a move, where normally reaction-type triggers would be in response to a GM move or just the fiction in general.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 19:39
|
|
|
Mikan posted:Those are just off the top of my head and they obviously aren't full moves but you could totally have a Doomed, Awful, Cursed, Tormented compendium class that still offers benefits and has moves that drive the narrative in a positive or interesting way. Yeah, it was late, I basically meant "If you're trying to write a move reflecting a cursed condition, don't make the move itself a curse." I'm a firm believer in the Carrot Not Stick school of move design.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 19:58
|
|
|
CitizenKeen posted:Second, there's tons of Stat replacement in DW, and I think "defending against an enemy who can die" as a situational replacement stat move is relatively limited. While not as limited as the Fighter's Interrogator (use violence) or Fighter/Dwarf (drink to switch Parley), it's much more limited (situationally harder to use) than Logical (describe how you're Sherlock) or Mechanical Suit (only when you're in your suit, which in my experience with games involving power suits is almost all the time, and can replace two basic moves). Interrogator, Mech Suit and Dwarven Fighter all define you as what you are and are really big deals. All of them have downsides to the replacement that can be exploited and are rich in description. Logical is a bad move and way too broad, not really something you want to copy. Gaze has a fictional element in that you stare into the eyes of a mortal (this was entirely unclear before and needs to be reworded, by the way) and scare them with your dead eyes. But why does that cause a Defend action? Why are they hitting you instead, or why are you dealing your level damage to them? The other two choices can be twisted to make sense for it, but the most important thing is still left out: how is staring something down causing you to stand in defense of something? The trigger is to stand in defense of something as normal, but then they're also scared of you because you stare them down? If they're scared of you why are they still trying to swing past/at you? You're doing two entirely separate things in one move, all just to do a basic move with a different stat. I guess my problem with this is 'why is this a Defend replacement instead of just a move about staring people down with your dead eyes'. It could totally be a move on its own, making it way cooler than just a flat stat replacement on a basic move. Hell, it could even replace Doomed as the starting move, letting you stare down people as someone who has Death floating over them at all times. Anything afraid of Death would be affected by this, and it could even hit undead as a result. I still feel like it's a Wisdom move using your experience with meeting Death head on, but alas. I suppose if it gets turned into a stare move it would barge into Dance with Death's thing, but Dance's trigger is kind of annoying to deal with and makes fights against anyone it works against trivial (on a 7-9 you get a free hit, on a 10+ they just flat out leave the fight). Shifting the whole 'scare people with your dark stare' thing over to being a move itself lets you do your doomed thing in more than just mortal combat and makes for an interesting move that can definitely compete with other cool advances without trumping them entirely.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 20:08
|
|
|
sentrygun posted:Interrogator, Mech Suit and Dwarven Fighter all define you as what you are and are really big deals. All of them have downsides to the replacement that can be exploited and are rich in description. Logical is a bad move and way too broad, not really something you want to copy. Gaze has a fictional element in that you stare into the eyes of a mortal (this was entirely unclear before and needs to be reworded, by the way) and scare them with your dead eyes. But why does that cause a Defend action? Why are they hitting you instead, or why are you dealing your level damage to them? The other two choices can be twisted to make sense for it, but the most important thing is still left out: how is staring something down causing you to stand in defense of something? The trigger is to stand in defense of something as normal, but then they're also scared of you because you stare them down? If they're scared of you why are they still trying to swing past/at you? You're doing two entirely separate things in one move, all just to do a basic move with a different stat. Above where I said I was not swayed? Consider me swayed.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 20:12
|
|
|
Logical is a really bad move, just as a reminder. It's a stat switch that essentially always triggers.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 20:19
|
|
|
mllaneza posted:Someone on G+ posted a really nice campaign playbook. I wish I'd finished mine first. Looks really really nice, but the d100 thing is a little jarring, although very useful. I personally really liked the World of Dungeons method of 2d6 or 1d6 being really quick easy tables. Still, a really great resource.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 21:49
|
|
|
Lemon Curdistan posted:Logical is a really bad move, just as a reminder. It's a stat switch that essentially always triggers. Not in highly spiritual, magical, or just-plain-confusing places. Some things are just beyond comprehension.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 23:27
|
|
|
Golden Bee posted:Not in highly spiritual, magical, or just-plain-confusing places. Some things are just beyond comprehension. You're a Wizard though. Magical poo poo makes perfect sense to you, you've probably read some books about gods, and the entire reason you're using Discern Realities is because it's confusing. It's a bad move because the trigger is so open that you can twist any and all situations into being applicable for it and it doesn't even require you to approach the situation in a different way, so it could very well just be written "use INT for Discern Realities" and be the same move.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 23:32
|
|
|
Lemon Curdistan posted:Logical is a really bad move, just as a reminder. It's a stat switch that essentially always triggers. I'm curious: Apocalypse World has many, many moves that are simple stat switches. Is that a bad thing in DW and ok in AW? If so, why? I don't really get it.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 23:37
|
|
|
Captain Foo posted:I'm curious: Apocalypse World has many, many moves that are simple stat switches. Is that a bad thing in DW and ok in AW? If so, why? I don't really get it. It's not really ideal in AW either. I play a Driver and I go to absurd lengths to get my car bonuses in any and every given situation. Luckily, that usually leads to awesome/hilarious fiction like driving a car into places cars shouldn't go. If "Discern Realities with INT" made a cool difference in the fiction, it would be a better move.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 00:01
|
|
|
Captain Foo posted:I'm curious: Apocalypse World has many, many moves that are simple stat switches. Is that a bad thing in DW and ok in AW? If so, why? I don't really get it. Stat switches are fine as long as they trigger off something that applies meaningfully and provides information about your character. A good example is the Dwarf Fighter's ability to Parley with +Con instead of +Cha when they're drinking with someone - that is situational enough that the player is encouraged to change their behaviour to use it, and interesting in that it says something about the character (they're a heavy drinker). Logical is bad not because it's a stat switch but because it's a move that can be summed up as "the Wizard can Discern Realities with his primary stat." That's all it does. "Logical" does tell you something about the character, but the move doesn't encourage the player to go out of his way to trigger it. More importantly, the Wizard is already practically a single-stat class, so the last thing it needs is a move about making it even less reliant on stats that aren't Int. It's less of a problem in AW because for the most part, AW doesn't let you Go Aggro, Seize by Force, Open Your Brain, Act Under Fire and Read a Sitch/Person off a single stat (I am not an AW expert though). Lemon-Lime fucked around with this message at 00:07 on May 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 00:04
|
|
|
Here's a thought about a Logical replacement:quote:Diviner It could be as simple as pulling out a dousing rod or dealing some tarot cards, so it's still broadly applicable, but I think it might be more evocative.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 00:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 05:44 |
|
|
PublicOpinion posted:Here's a thought about a Logical replacement: I'd change ritual for another word, since that's already a thing, but that's still pretty good.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 00:17
|
|