|
Lemon Curdistan posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_arts_of_Zhou_Tong#Hard_Qigong I don't know why I'm surprised. I shouldn't be.
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 17:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 06:56 |
|
|
ROUND TWO of the Not-Quite-Warlock: http://www.mediafire.com/?xcx5a00b4wrcwjs Changed a lot with LC's suggestions, also added a new source of power, one less bond, and one less drive. I changed Eldritch Blast to Eldritch Hex, and pretty much reworked 3/4 of the class.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 17:29
|
|
|
Fenarisk posted:ROUND TWO of the Not-Quite-Warlock: Is this supposed to be only one page or am I missing something
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 17:31
|
|
|
Fenarisk posted:I actually have no idea what this class is. Whaaaaat. The Binder is a base class introduced in Tome of Magic (the less-successful attempt to introduce completely different magic classes that followed Tome of Battle/Book of Nine Swords) that gets its power from making a pact with dead/lost gods and spirits and offering them a physical host (themselves) in exchange for the ability to take on some of their traits and use some of their powers. The BG Binder handbook is here: http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=2hntil85rmhsmhhsj6fj7cokr0&topic=2942.msg35442#msg35442 It's one of the coolest class concepts in 3.5. You basically summon the shade of a dead god, and then bargain with it to find out what it wants in exchange for lending you its powers, and when it does, you're physically marked by the god (you grow horns, or cast two shadows, etc. as long as you have those powers). It's well worth finding a copy of Tome of Magic to look this up. e; reading your rewrite briefly, you are trying to make the Binder, basically. Look it up. Lemon-Lime fucked around with this message at 17:38 on May 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 17:34
|
|
|
gnome7 posted:Is this supposed to be only one page or am I missing something Right now just one page, I want the base class fleshed out before worrying about advanced moves. Edit: Binder chat http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Binder_%283.5e_Class%29 holy poo poo this is really cool. Fenarisk fucked around with this message at 17:39 on May 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 17:36
|
|
|
I was actually trying to make a Binder class when I was first making my Diabolist (lawyer). I'm curious to see how a binder would work though. I'm imagining a Mage that basically swaps very limited spell foci on the fly.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 17:45
|
|
|
Lemon Curdistan posted:It's well worth finding a copy of Tome of Magic to look this up. It really is, the chapter on Shadow Magic is really good, even if the class itself needs hotfixes to even be viable. Truenaming is a statisticians wet dream, but everyone else's nightmare. Fenarisk posted:Edit: Binder chat http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Binder_%283.5e_Class%29 holy poo poo this is really cool. This is the binder. 
Kurieg fucked around with this message at 17:51 on May 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 17:45
|
|
|
I guess my only issue with something like the 3.5 binder is the dizzying array of options/boons/vestige bonuses because of how many things there are to make pacts with. Letting a player pick signs (horns/boils/etc) is easy enough but it almost seems like you'd have to pick one pact/vestige to have a nice cohesive playbook. I personally like the idea I have as a little toned down binder, I might play around with the design space a little more to have it a little more thematic because even with cleaning it up some for the fiction I don't really feel it "pops" as a complete concept.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 17:51
|
|
|
I tried making some Binder-based systems and Compendium classes in Vestige Magic (don't buy it its pretty half-assed, use this instead), which was an attempt to build off of people wanting to adapt their snowflake D&D prestige classes into Dungeon World that I never really continued. Maybe someone can find something of use in there.
Dagon fucked around with this message at 18:03 on May 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 18:01
|
|
|
I was planning on converting my players to this system, so I sent them the link to the "free" online rules. Most of the players loved it, but my most experienced player seemed very irritated by the rules: 1. He hated the character creation. He found them limiting (his example was: You have to choose Hard eyes or Shifty Eyes). 2. he also hated the open ended feeling of the rules (his example was: travel - there are rules for success and partial success but nothing for failure). Are these free online rules complete? Are there missing bits? Or is he being overly nitpicky?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 18:13
|
|
|
He's being nitpicky. "But my character sheet says blue eyes, I want grey eyes!" He can pick whatever he wants, if you don't want the name or the looks then he can choose something of his own, it's meant to be a super quick pickup and play method and it can be as complex as you want. The point of the rules is they are open ended so the fiction comes first and it makes sense. The failure rules for travel would be up to the GM depending on where you are traveling. Open road in a kingdom? Failure might mean bandits! Swamp travel in the rain? Failure might meant he wagon is stuck and sinking.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 18:16
|
|
|
Dagon posted:I tried making some Binder-based systems and Compendium classes in Vestige Magic (don't buy it its pretty half-assed, use this instead), which was an attempt to build off of people wanting to adapt their snowflake D&D prestige classes into Dungeon World that I never really continued. Maybe someone can find something of use in there. I was just thinking of having this as more of a compendium class thing, and here you go and link that. Personally I think it fills the design niche pretty well, because the more I think about adding neat vestiges or options, the more I think it'd just be a good compendium class on top of the Mage. Edit: Let this be a lesson that a lot of neat concepts work just as well as a compendium class with 2-3 good moves and some flavor on top of another class.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 18:17
|
|
|
Fenarisk posted:The point of the rules is they are open ended so the fiction comes first and it makes sense. The failure rules for travel would be up to the GM depending on where you are traveling. Open road in a kingdom? Failure might mean bandits! Swamp travel in the rain? Failure might meant he wagon is stuck and sinking. That's what I was thinking. But I suppose prior experience with systems that had mechanics for everything means that he expects more direct answers spelled out.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 18:18
|
|
|
Those are particularly nitty; I don't think my group has ever used the appearance or names bit, I guess if you're a stickler for the rules this becomes a problem if he can't accept "Just ignore that and describe your own appearance". As for no rules for failure, those are covered in great detail and explicitly in the GM section, under "When to make a move". The available moves are laid out explicitly and if there are moves that aren't on the list a prepared GM often has them laid out for a monster/danger/location. A more off-the-cuff GM might make up moves on the fly, however. These are actual rules; they aren't just GM guidelines, although like any game the GM usually plays loose with the rules. When a player rolls a 6-, the rules say this is a prompt for the GM to make a move, usually a hard move. Of course, it's also a rule in DW that the GM isn't supposed to tell the players about their moves ("never speak the name of your move"). e: So he shouldn't expect answers if he asks about what happens on 6- during play, but he sure as hell can look at the GM section and figure out what's possible. TheDemon fucked around with this message at 18:33 on May 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 18:24
|
|
|
Blast. Failed in converting my group. Said player takes some aspects of the rules far too literally. He's astounded that players might want to be provided with example lists of names and Bonds. SIGH EDIT: he's making all the same complaints against the game as in grogs.txt. I can't change his mind.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 18:33
|
|
|
Kick him out, play without him. Problem solved.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 18:35
|
|
|
What exactly is he after? Get him to name a situation and it'll be covered by DW rules more than any other system. e.g. "I want to do a triple backflip off this giant snake's head and then stab it in the toes (this snake-god has toes by the way and they're vulnerable)" is covered to various extents by defy danger, hack and slash and spout lore. If he literally wants things spelled out in every possible situation, print out 400 A4 sheets of the defy danger rules, ring-bind them and then drop it on his head while shouting "this is what happens when you roll a 6!"
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 19:05
|
|
|
Is there a large difference (other than formatting and artwork) between the online free rules and the final, complete PDF? Are there more rules in the pdf? More classes? Is there a particular reason why the classes and races are locked (eg. no elf thieves) I'm assuming so, but I just thought I'd ask. EDIT: one last question, does the full PDF from drive Thru contain some of the stretch goals from the Kickstarter? eg. Barbarian class Rocket Ace fucked around with this message at 19:28 on May 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 19:23
|
|
|
You can totally be an Elf thief, just take whatever racial move fits your duder.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 19:28
|
|
|
I don't think it's appropriate to force anybody to play the game, but if he's dismissing it out of hand before playing it, offer to run a one-shot or point him to the auxiliary player's guide that Scrape and Evil Mastermind made, which goes pretty in-depth at answering a variety of concerns that a lot of groggos have about the system. If he really is that opposed to a game before having actually tried it, then running without him may also be valid! The world is your oyster. e: The free rules online don't have the art assets that the PDF provides and also don't have the playbooks/character sheets lined out as neatly, but those are available for free on the DW main website.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 19:29
|
|
|
As has been said, the names and appearances are to prompt you to start thinking about your character. You don't have to select from the list, but you should at least fill in the blank to give the rest of the group the seed of an idea of who the character is. If he's the kind of person that needs to know what happens on a failure, these are the rules for what happens when they fail their rolls (or do something stupid for that matter):
Sorry the conversion isn't going so hot.  Is this the same group that you've been playing Fate, Mouse Guard and Dread with? Dungeon World really isn't that much more abstracted than any of those.Rocket Ace posted:Is there a large difference (other than formatting and artwork) between the online free rules and the final, complete PDF? There aren't any elf thieves because by default DW is trying to evoke old school tropes. But if you have a player that wants to be an elf thief, it's as easy as making up a racial move for elves. Probably something about secret doors. 
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 19:30
|
|
|
The online rules have been recently updated, and I want to say they're 1:1 the same thing as the PDF/Print version but there might be a section or two omitted, can't quite remember. They're more than sufficient for using to play the game, though. (EDIT: They're probably identical besides the formatting and not having the art) As for races, they're examples, not the set requirement. You can be a Gelatinous Cube Thief if you really want to. Make up a racial move for it, write it down, and pow, you're a squishy glob who fights really dirty, especially with all the dirt you accidentally collect in your body. sentrygun fucked around with this message at 19:35 on May 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 19:31
|
|
|
Rocket Ace posted:Is there a large difference (other than formatting and artwork) between the online free rules and the final, complete PDF? Nope. The online rules are 100% up to date as of last April. If you want more rules and classes, aside from the megapost at the beginning of this thread, you also have about 10 hours to back Inverse World and get 6 more really good classes, soon to be 8 more. quote:Is there a particular reason why the classes and races are locked (eg. no elf thieves) Also nope, it's just recommendations. If you want more options than what is there, LemonCurdistan completed the grid and made moves for each core fantasy race/class combination.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 19:31
|
|
|
gnome7 posted:...you also have about 10 hours to back Inverse World and get 6 more really good classes, soon to be 8 more. Oh yeah already a backer  .gnome7 posted:Also nope, it's just recommendations. If you want more options than what is there, LemonCurdistan completed the grid and made moves for each core fantasy race/class combination. Cool, thanks!
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 19:36
|
|
|
If it makes you feel any better I have been trying to convert my old 4e group over to DW via letting them play and watch games. I have nothing against 4e, and still like it for what it is, but I honestly can't personally go back to a game that has combat as a separate set of rules. (I really just hate initiative). They keep doing a lot of "Yeah, but..." and then try to start a new 4e game and wonder why it doesn't take off like our DW sessions. I love them but, well, sometimes you just gotta move on to another group if interest is split. I also agree with the "just don't invite him, play with people who don't flippantly dismiss things without experiencing them first." Maybe that's just the part of me talking that has experienced a lot of grog in person, though. I guess I'll ask a question since I've gone ahead and put this post up. I am thinking of creating two custom moves for my Dungeon Planet game which revolve around 1) handling weapons which are alien to the player, and 2) handling fighting off the advances of an A.I. which is in a robot player. I'm thinking for the A.I. I could probably adapt the Golem's Prime Directive move, and for the weapons something like: When you try to fire a weapon which is alien to you, roll +Int/Wis. On a 10+, you figure it out! On a 7-9, choose one. On a -6, choose two. *Bad thing 1 *Bad thing 2 *Bad thing 3 Is that the right kind of setup? Am I doing custom moves right? I don't want to overuse custom moves (because I'm not good at them) but these situations are popping up due to players answering questions. Unrelated: The whole choose your eyes, figure, etc, etc. really clicked with me when I realized DW is just a ruleset for playing with G.I Joe toys (or Thundercats, He-Man, Ghostbusters, whatever other stuff you played with). They just give you a way to customize your action figure. VVVV Thanks! Overemotional Robot fucked around with this message at 23:07 on May 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 22:22
|
|
|
Fenarisk posted:Kick him out, play without him. Problem solved. Do this. He's a grog, don't play with grogs. Also, don't play Pathfinder. Rocket Ace posted:Is there a large difference (other than formatting and artwork) between the online free rules and the final, complete PDF? IIRC the online repo got updated recently so the only differences should be less typos in the published version, plus art. I may be wrong. There are no Elf Thieves because oldschool D&D had racial class restrictions, but if you want to play one you can use this: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1auPwpj9_55IwdikP7m09G3rpwB1hBYiBtd_sjWU9Tu8/edit Ditto alignments: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1r3Au3jjbL82AISF16WuvoIFDXuet5vu0WMcoDLf8sVU/edit?usp=sharing The Barbarian isn't out yet, but the Druid is part of the core book. When the Barbarian is done it will be released to everyone. Overemotional Robot posted:Is that the right kind of setup? Am I doing custom moves right? Yes, yes. Lemon-Lime fucked around with this message at 22:52 on May 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 22:48
|
|
|
Rocket Ace posted:That's what I was thinking. But I suppose prior experience with systems that had mechanics for everything means that he expects more direct answers spelled out. Play a one-shot without him. When your other players are gushing about having such a good time, he might come around. You could also talk about how the reason most player moves don't have rules for a miss is because that's the GM's job. Consequences for a miss are about the effect on the fiction at the moment, s often there is no point to writing what happens on a fail. Ask him for an example when he doesn't know way will happen, and then respond with a fictional example as mentioned in the rules. Also as has been said, character description, alignment, and race are easily hacked. At your assist, you could dimly cross out where it says "human" and write elf. Or steal an elf starting move from another character. What he may not yet understand is that this game is built for hacking! Write your own racial moves, write your own bonds, make up new monsters, go hog wild! That said, the game isn't for everybody. I've only encountered one player that expressed frustration with DW, but that was more based on the ideology of lack of GM planning, and perhaps how most if the playbooks were combat-centric. The player was also used to games like PDQ where the stats were built from things you write about the character, and were far more abstract. Don't make him play, but don't let him stop you and your friends from trying the game. You shouldn't miss out on a possibly fun experience because the system doesn't look as concrete for him. Besides, DW has more robust rules for GMing than any other system I've encountered and may make you a better GM no matter what game you play. Just be ready to flex your improvisation muscles!
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 23:45
|
|
|
Lemon Curdistan posted:There are no Elf Thieves because oldschool D&D had racial class restrictions, but if you want to play one you can use this: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1auPwpj9_55IwdikP7m09G3rpwB1hBYiBtd_sjWU9Tu8/edit I do find it odd that a modern game with such a huge emphasis on player agency sticks to the old school race restrictions. Still as you say it's easily changed.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 23:54
|
|
|
It might be an interesting exercise to relabel all the racial moves as Backgrounds like the Inverse World playbooks and come up with names for them.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 23:56
|
|
|
Mr. Maltose posted:It might be an interesting exercise to relabel all the racial moves as Backgrounds like the Inverse World playbooks and come up with names for them. I definitely think this is a worthy endeavour. I understand why Sage and Adam used racial moves to evoke that old school feel, and sometimes race can still be a useful aspect. Overall though, I think Drives and Aspects/Backgrounds are far more interesting and fictionally rich. I remember a game on the forums where one player payed a Beholder wizard or bard, and another player was a sentient book! All they really hacked was the race moves and it worked great.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 00:03
|
|
|
WordMercenary posted:I do find it odd that a modern game with such a huge emphasis on player agency sticks to the old school race restrictions. Still as you say it's easily changed. It's very much a love letter to oldschool D&D, though - warts and all. Mr. Maltose posted:It might be an interesting exercise to relabel all the racial moves as Backgrounds like the Inverse World playbooks and come up with names for them. I'm working on it. Slowly.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 00:20
|
|
|
Apologies if this has come up before, but a quick question: I'm coming mostly from a dnd3.5 background, and Ive gotten paranoid about class tiers. Does dungeonworld have similar problems? I love the basic idea of the system, but got nervous when I saw cleric and wizard had a page of spells other characters didn't have access to.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 02:20
|
|
|
LowellDND posted:Apologies if this has come up before, but a quick question: I don't think any class I or my group has payed with have really outshone another. The game's mostly (in my mind) about constructing a solid narrative dialogue between people, and the system's goos at not letting one class shine more than the other.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 02:24
|
|
|
LowellDND posted:Apologies if this has come up before, but a quick question: Personally I think the wizard and cleric are a little under powered, but that's me. I'd say go with The Mage and The Initiate so they drop the spell lists and feel more Dungeon Worldy. Yes yes I know that DW is a love letter to old school D&D that's just the one place I think would be better served in general. On that note I don't think anyone has released a spell compendium for either class, which I think is odd. An extra 2-3 spell options per level might not be too bad.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 02:28
|
|
|
I think that's just because it's not unreasonably difficult to just make a new class.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 02:32
|
|
|
And not a lot of people like the spell concept in the first place, thus why we're not seeing a bunch or any classes with Cast a Spell variants.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 02:38
|
|
|
sentrygun posted:And not a lot of people like the spell concept in the first place, thus why we're not seeing a bunch or any classes with Cast a Spell variants. Well, we sort of do, they're just worded far better by allowing you to choose tags and then letting you choose a separate narrative flair for the spell. Black Magic is basically Cast a Spell in a much, much better written format.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 02:44
|
|
|
Cast a Spell is the spell move for the Cleric and the Wizard, and the spell lists are far more than just damage spells.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 02:45
|
|
|
LowellDND posted:Apologies if this has come up before, but a quick question: A good 70%+ of the moves you make are the basic moves, even as a caster. If anything I found the wizard and the cleric a little underpowered, since their spells are really focused on support, but frankly the game seems to lack class balance problems entirely. Something about the structure and flow of the game under a fair DM results in a pretty equal playing field; that's probably because there are no real restrictions on what any single PC can do. That is to say, the movelist triggers from what the players do, not the other way around. So players are explicitly not limited by their moves. Rather, they're limited by In Character knowledge or lack of it, their environment, IC personalities and inclinations, and the physics and other natural laws of the setting. Some of the homebrew classes do have badly written move triggers or effects, though, which makes them difficult to adjudicate as written. That might extend to base classes too, I haven't read them over in detail in a while.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 02:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 06:56 |
|
|
TheDemon posted:A good 70%+ of the moves you make are the basic moves, even as a caster. If anything I found the wizard and the cleric a little underpowered, since their spells are really focused on support, but frankly the game seems to lack class balance problems entirely. Something about the structure and flow of the game under a fair DM results in a pretty equal playing field; that's probably because there are no real restrictions on what any single PC can do. That is to say, the movelist triggers from what the players do, not the other way around. So players are explicitly not limited by their moves. Rather, they're limited by In Character knowledge or lack of it, their environment, IC personalities and inclinations, and the physics and other natural laws of the setting. 'Difficult to adjudicate' pretty much perfectly encapsulates why we had Druidchat every couple pages before the FAQ was added to the op.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 03:12
|
|
