|
unzealous posted:By all means, I'd be delighted to see how it looks. I'm just glad people are having as much fun playing it as I had making it. And a thanks to everyone in the thread who helped review and critique it. Here you go! unzealous's Metamorph I really had a struggle fitting all the advanced moves in! Needed to cut out a lot of the Gear space to do it. I tried not to touch most of your wording, but made some small edits to be consistent in a few places, and shortened some flavour text to fit. Here are the Inkscape files if you want to make changes, it's dead easy (still needs Names, for instance): One Two
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 21:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 00:01 |
|
|
Hey it looks great, I'm really impressed with how it turned out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 22:24
|
|
|
I've now completed my tweaks to the Impostor class (think Dopplegangers--the main reason why I didn't name it that is there's already a Doppleganger compendium class). Not 100% sure about some things, but that's why I'm offering it up for review. Same link as the current one in the OP. Impostor class Kaja Rainbow fucked around with this message at 00:14 on Jun 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2013 00:09
|
|
|
Last night I had my first experience with Dungeon World - I was GMing for a group of four, three of whom have never played any sort of RPG, tabletop or otherwise, and one who played a few sessions of D&D3.5 a few years ago. Instead of the first session as described in the book, I had kind of a session zero. We went through character creation, then I just asked them whatever questions I thought were interesting from Wrede's Fantasy Worldbuilding Questions list (http://www.sfwa.org/2009/08/fantasy-worldbuilding-questions/). I brought some paper, too, and any time anyone talked about some physical thing in the game world, I had them draw it on the map. It was loving fantastic and so much fun. I'm sure you could do the same for almost any game system, but I think it really made the players feel like they do actually have a lot of narrative control in the game, and it definitely pulled them into the game world as they had to think about how things actually worked in-world. Also it made me, as the GM, very excited to explore and have adventures in this world that I didn't just build myself prior to running the game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2013 08:25
|
|
|
jonthegm posted:What I find helps in any ApocWorld based system is to mix in more obscenities. This works well in Dungeon World, too. That Fighter's player must be bored to tears. It's much more fun to describe exactly how your fighter is hitting with his sword (to the point where a bunch of people in my group now think the Fighter is more fun than the Wizard). BBLG is also awesome. Our Fighter single-handedly collapsed a tower we were fighting in. That poo poo is awesome.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2013 15:38
|
|
|
The fighter in my group causes nothing but chaos. The ways he describes hitting things has cause more adventures than just about anything else.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2013 16:42
|
|
|
I posted this on the G+ Community, but I figured I'd share it here too. I've been thinking about a more explicit move for sneaking and stealth, so here's my first pass at it. This could either be a new basic move for everybody, or a starting or advanced move for stealth classes. Sneak When you use stealth to traverse dangerous territory, roll+Dex. On a 10+, hold 3. On a 7-9, hold 1. Spend hold, 1 for 1, on the following. - You find an opportunity to sneak past an obstacle unobserved. - You find a hidden way or an alternate route. - You have an opportunity to take someone by surprise. This also gives me a chance to talk about the power and flexibility of *world game moves, because they use language to talk specifically about the fiction your group is creating. In the above move, I chose the word Territory specifically so it could be interpreted very widely. It might mean sneaking past your parents to go on adventures with your friends to stop the evil clown from killing mary, it could be used to disguise yourself as a carboard box to sneak into a facility, or it could be used to try and sneak through enemy territory, or a Dragon's hunting grounds unnoticed. I've also been reading a few conversations about the nature of *world games and how the Powered By The Apocalypse rules work, in regards to playbooks specifically. The First thing was brought up in an interview with Jackson Tegu I read. In the interview, he talked about making skins, which are the playbooks for PbtA game Monsterhearts. Jackson Tegu posted:JT: Yeah, these Skins have been on the workbench for a year and half now. *Looks at calendar mournfully* I thought this would be a fast project! But the funny thing is that each Skin is actually its own non-self-contained game system that interacts with its parent game, Monsterhearts. That’s something I didn’t realize right away, so some of the Skins that are more mechanically “out there” took a bunch of bushwacking to actually even get on the trail of. I’m glad to have tracked them down! And that also gives me solace, to remember that I’m actually releasing a web of six games that hub on Monsterhearts, it’s not just some pretty layout and cool ideas. The beauty of playbooks is that they are almost all-inclusive. Everything you need to know about playing your concept is there on the sheet. Jackson's thoughts on Playbooks being smaller, but still similar games each player is playing got me thinking about how varied you could make playbooks - how far you could stretch the mechanics to fit a concept before it breaks. Another discussion in the Apocalypse World G+ forum about how a playbook is a mixture of a Nature ("This is what I am") and a Stricture ("This is how I have to be.") Some of this discussion is about moves that may affect the character negatively, and how they express limitations as well as strengths. THAT got me thinking about pushing playbooks to express these things, about moving the fiction forward through the concept's limitations and failings, which I think is something *World games are well designed to accomodate. I'd love to hear other people's thoughts on these topics, and also the Sneak move.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2013 17:09
|
|
|
madadric posted:Another discussion in the Apocalypse World G+ forum about how a playbook is a mixture of a Nature ("This is what I am") and a Stricture ("This is how I have to be.") The idea of using the playbook to address limitations and failings is something I sorta tackled with the Cursed Knight. It's definitely doable in DW, but it presents some problems that aren't as present in Monsterhearts. For all that Dungeon World takes from Apocalypse World, it still has a not-insignificant element of 'beating up monsters and taking their stuff.' So, for drawbacks that decrease your 'beating up monsters' ability, players sort of expect to get some really cool stuff to compensate or they're likely to just not be interested. The Cursed Knight essentially had to have that kind of drawback, since the main hook is that you're this barely-controlled juggernaut, but in the future I would probably focus more on things with social drawbacks when exploring that design space since I had to give the knight some pretty scary combat abilities to compensate. As far as the sneak move: My first instinct is to do it as a non-hold move ('2 of: you catch somebody helpless, you don't raise any alarm or suspicion,' etc) but it seems fine as-is. If you do it as a hold move, though, I'd add one like 'you lose any pursuers.' I'm imagining all of those moments in fiction when the hero manages to cling to the ceiling or leave a false trail or whatever else, and it's something I'd probably expect from the move as a player. Speaking of moves, here's some more fun stuff I've been working on.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2013 19:02
|
|
|
One of the biggest issues I ran into with Dungeon World playbooks is context. Unless you go to great pains to add a different context (Inverse World), people are going to be annoyed if a playbook strays from D&D assumptions. One of these assumptions, from what I can tell, is that a playbook won't have real drawbacks or penalties. You can kinda sneak them into moves with 7-9 or 6- results, but even a bad thing should have some kind of positive effect. (The Warlock selling their soul and risking eternal damnation is represented with Claimed Soul, which mechanically translates to succeeding on Last Breath even with 6-.) I get it - the idea is an advance, a new move, should be some kind of improvement over what you had before. And taking negative concepts and turning them into relatively positive things that move the story forward is good, people like that. I don't think moves have to be universally positive; I'm fine with a move that actually decreases your capabilities honestly, as long as it moves the story forward, but something like that is going to be a hard sell to most folks. I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with that, except for how it limits options. Dungeon World's capable of far more than being another D&D clone and sometimes it's a struggle to get folks to see past that. (Gnome and I actually received some IW criticism because that person didn't think people should be doing anything new or different until Dungeon World had solidly covered everything in D&D.) My main gripe with Dungeon World right now, compared to tremulus/Monsterhearts/Apocalypse World, is how dense the playbooks are. A Monsterhearts skin or Apocalypse World playbook presents a compelling concept and story in 5-7 moves. A Dungeon World playbook is minimum 24. Again, I get why that is - the treadmill is a part of fantasy RPGs now, people have a certain assumption of how RPG fantasy works, DW is based on D&D, etc - but I think a more fantastical Dungeon World would thrive with smaller, more focused playbooks. A lot of the concepts that won't quite fit 24-26 moves and get awkwardly jammed into a compendium class instead would make brilliant Skin-sized playbooks. I think we'd see some cool stuff and more not-D&D stuff, but I repeat myself. Dungeon World style playbooks do have their benefits, you can get a lot deeper into a concept and present entertaining options when a playbook has 24+ moves to choose from and you can afford to go with a broader archetype. I'm not sure it's necessarily better or worse than how the other * World games handle it but it's been bugging me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2013 19:22
|
|
|
A Monster Hearts game should be 1-4 sessions. My current Dungeon World game is at 15 and will probably wrap at 21-22. The scope is what matters. Monster Hearts is based more on a TV season or film, whereas Dungeon World is for an epic cycle. You couldn't emulate all 7 seasons of Buffy with just the Chosen skin.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2013 20:14
|
|
|
There's some merit to that, but Apocalypse World has leaner playbooks and can handle campaign play. There's also nothing that says Dungeon World has to be used for epic campaigns or even anything more than one-shots.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2013 20:23
|
|
|
I agree with that statement, though most one-shots my group has done so far has been a thing we've continued.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2013 21:19
|
|
|
So! I intend to try and play a game of DW with some e-friends and I am doing a bit of research in the matter, but I am a little confused. The free copy claims to have been updated last in April, this year, but is this actually the most up to date? A pdf copy I saw some time ago from a friend didn't have things like rations and the like. I am a little shy on buying the game based on what might just be a one-shot and shier to get other people to buy it for just this, too, so; What's the difference between the free rules and the print and PDF version?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2013 22:15
|
|
|
I just had a bolt of lightning about what shapeshifter (well, what heritage, and therefore by extension, what shapeshifter) moves are really doing. You know how every move has like bold text representing its fictional trigger? "When you attack an enemy in melee", "when you destroy an obstacle with pure strength", "when you release a spell you've prepared". You know how some moves make you roll and some moves don't? When you use a shapeshifter/heritage move, you are engaging the fictional trigger and leaving the DM to write the rest. Which includes the rider "if there's doubt, roll some dice". Maybe I'm conflating two things that shouldn't be put together there, or maybe I'm just way off base, but it seems to make sense. Also! Gamerofthegame posted:So! The current print and PDF rules are the free rules, plus a bunch of examples of play and similar advice. You are not missing any rules with that gazetteer link, but you might be missing something that could help you understand them better. Glazius fucked around with this message at 23:02 on Jun 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2013 23:00
|
|
|
Gamerofthegame posted:What's the difference between the free rules and the print and PDF version? How many pretty pictures and sidebar quotes there are, basically. All the actual rules are up to date. Kaja Rainbow posted:I've now completed my tweaks to the Impostor class (think Dopplegangers--the main reason why I didn't name it that is there's already a Doppleganger compendium class). Not 100% sure about some things, but that's why I'm offering it up for review. Same link as the current one in the OP. Off hand, my main problem is that the class doesn't really have a "main" stat. Yeah, all the starting moves are Wis-based, which is all well and good. But of all the 2-5 moves that aren't upgrades to a starting move, one is based on Cha, one is based on Dex, one is based on Con, one improves an Int-based basic move, and one requires a Str or Dex-based move when you're not just sneak attacking a guy. The last time I saw this level of multiple attribute dependency was with the Warlock's 6-10 moves, and that was one of the first non-core playbooks released. Otherwise the moves are... pretty cool. I feel the advanced moves could be better worded, but other than the stat spread I can't really put my finger on how.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2013 23:05
|
|
|
Glazius posted:I just had a bolt of lightning about what shapeshifter (well, what heritage, and therefore by extension, what shapeshifter) moves are really doing. I'm actually not sure. There was a huge Druid FAQ in the previous thread (and there's a link to it in the OP) which should clear things up, but the way I've understood it the moves granted by shapeshifter/heritage are more like GM moves than player moves, so when you use hold on them the exact thing that the move says it does happens with whatever mechanical consequences as appropriate in the fiction. Now, a character that has shapeshifted into, say, a crocodile will be able to use the crocodile's "attack an unsuspecting victim" (to borrow from the crocodilian, which is basically just a big croc) by using hold provided the fiction is right for that given move (i.e. the victim is unsuspecting because the Druid turned croc is submerged in water). In that case, it happens and the Druid deals damage. After that the Druid couldn't keep spamming hold to deal damage because the fictional requirements of the move would no longer be in place, and they'd have to Hack and Slash normally to attack a foe. The Druid could use hold to trigger the "Hold something tight in its jaws" move following said attack, and again, it would just happen. However, if the creature were of a particularly strong bent, holding it in the Druid's jaws could trigger Defy Danger, the danger being "the creature struggles lose." But the Druid would've still been able to hold the creature in its jaws for a while, probably preventing said monster from making any monster moves before it started struggling. So, yeah. Moves gained via Shapeshifter kind of just happen and their appropriate mechanical effects take place. In general I think that asking players to roll for moves triggered by using hold is bad form, because the player has already rolled to gain said hold, and in a game where failing a roll can have terrible (if interesting) consequences you don't want to make your players roll too many times for the same thing. So: any move actually possessed by the animal form taken by the Druid (of which there are usually only two or three) just happens as long as the fiction is appropriate (and sometimes other moves, like Defy Danger, need to be made to set up an animal move), and for anything outside the animal's moves the player still needs to roll as appropriate. Ratpick fucked around with this message at 23:35 on Jun 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2013 23:30
|
|
|
Lurks With Wolves posted:Off hand, my main problem is that the class doesn't really have a "main" stat. Yeah, all the starting moves are Wis-based, which is all well and good. But of all the 2-5 moves that aren't upgrades to a starting move, one is based on Cha, one is based on Dex, one is based on Con, one improves an Int-based basic move, and one requires a Str or Dex-based move when you're not just sneak attacking a guy. The last time I saw this level of multiple attribute dependency was with the Warlock's 6-10 moves, and that was one of the first non-core playbooks released. Thanks for the critique. I was a little worried about that and it looks like my concerns were warranted. I think I'll revise the Con-based one to use Wis. I'll also replace the Spout Lore enhancement with another move (possibly Cha-based to round it out to two); the Wanderer background covers what I wanted to do with that. The Dex-based move and damage bonus I'll also keep as is, because there's a reason I provided a rapier as a starting equipment option. That leaves the Cha-based one which I'll keep as is because it fits the move and Cha has plenty of benefits for a deception-based class anyway. That lessens the number of required stats to 3 if you wanted to take all stat-dependent moves (it's likely that many Impostors'll only need 1 or 2 of those stats). Basically you can go for a charismatic shapeshifter or a nimble and sneaky one or ignore those moves and focus on other stats. At least that's my intention. I'll also do another editing pass over the advanced moves and see where I can improve the wording. Kaja Rainbow fucked around with this message at 00:55 on Jun 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 00:27
|
|
|
Ratpick posted:I'm actually not sure. There was a huge Druid FAQ in the previous thread (and there's a link to it in the OP) which should clear things up, but the way I've understood it the moves granted by shapeshifter/heritage are more like GM moves than player moves, so when you use hold on them the exact thing that the move says it does happens with whatever mechanical consequences as appropriate in the fiction. But that's just the thing. Taken just as its direct implications, "attack an unsuspecting victim" is a terrible shapeshifter move. The Druid can do that even when he's not shapeshifted, do full damage, and not even have to roll anything! There are quite a few PC moves that may as well start with "when you attack an unsuspecting victim" and give you a choice between just dealing your damage or rolling +something to gamble for a greater effect. The real shapeshifter move there, if you're thinking about it, would be like (when you) "hide yourself in the river" (nothing can find you without touching you), or (when you) "leap from water to surprise them" (deal your damage or roll +wis: on a hit deal your damage, on a 10+ also deal +1d6 damage or grab them in your jaws).
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 03:59
|
|
|
Glazius posted:When you use a shapeshifter/heritage move, you are engaging the fictional trigger and leaving the DM to write the rest. Which includes the rider "if there's doubt, roll some dice". Not really. I suppose some people do this, but I'm all for having you go nutbar talking about how you do your cool thing. It's just a fun thing to do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 05:44
|
|
|
sentrygun posted:Not really. I suppose some people do this, but I'm all for having you go nutbar talking about how you do your cool thing. It's just a fun thing to do. Corollary, if they aren't planning on going nutbar about the cool stuff they do, why'd they take the class ?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 07:13
|
|
|
Glazius posted:or (when you) "leap from water to surprise them" (deal your damage or roll +wis: on a hit deal your damage, on a 10+ also deal +1d6 damage or grab them in your jaws). This is explicitly not how shapeshifter moves work. Shapeshifter moves are monster moves; they're structured like monster moves and when you spend hold to make them, they just happen. "Attack an unsuspecting enemy" is pretty boring but it's a perfectly valid monster move for some monster types. If you don't like your Druid player having access to a monster move like that, don't give it to them; you control what monster moves they get when they change shape. Lurks With Wolves posted:Off hand, my main problem is that the class doesn't really have a "main" stat. Yeah, all the starting moves are Wis-based, which is all well and good. But of all the 2-5 moves that aren't upgrades to a starting move, one is based on Cha, one is based on Dex, one is based on Con, one improves an Int-based basic move, and one requires a Str or Dex-based move when you're not just sneak attacking a guy. Without commenting on the rest of the class (not had time to read it): this isn't a problem. You've got 10 2-5 moves; you can do four that don't rely on the primary stat for players who want to pick them up. An easy fix in this case is to make Brazen Imitation a +Cha move because that's more logical anyway. Also, Misguided Trust is fantastic, for the record. Et Tu, Brute? isn't so great, though - instead of +2d6 damage (a ludicrous amount), it should be +1d6 and a special effect (like "they never get a chance to defend themselves). The Best Plans Are Subtle should probably require a Wis roll. Lemon-Lime fucked around with this message at 08:17 on Jun 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 08:09
|
|
|
I'm going to be running this for the first time this weekend. Is there any advice people have, any rules or features of the game that commonly cause problems? How much should I prepare? The rulebook says not much, that you play to find out what's going on, but you must need at least a bunch of baddies, treasure and a location, right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 09:09
|
|
|
Gort posted:I'm going to be running this for the first time this weekend. Is there any advice people have, any rules or features of the game that commonly cause problems? Nothing you can't make up on the spot. A setting would help, but to encourage you to just play off your cuff all you should need is the monster creation rules and some people to play with. Making up a monster can be pretty quick and easy, plus combat really isn't as heavily geared towards dealing and taking damage as the rules make it look at a glance. If you really wanted to you could just decide on a damage die and wing the rest of a monster just fine, playing up whatever's fictionally coolest and going full on action movie with it. Treasure doesn't really mean anything unless it's really cool, so just come up with cool ideas for artifacts or throw literally whatever you want in otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 09:16
|
|
|
I find it helps a lot to have a couple maps on hand. They don't need to be labeled, and actually probably should not be. Dave's Mapper is your friend here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 09:46
|
|
|
Lemon Curdistan posted:Without commenting on the rest of the class (not had time to read it): this isn't a problem. You've got 10 2-5 moves; you can do four that don't rely on the primary stat for players who want to pick them up. Though I don't really agree with them over Misplaced Trust--you're only really rolling Strength if you didn't pick one of the 2 out of 4 weapon options that use Dexterity. That makes easily makes two moves that use Dexterity (but I might change the other one, see below). Not to mention that the trigger means that often you'll just be rolling your damage rather than triggering Hack'N'Slash or Volley, and it likely took already rolls just to set up a situation where they trust you. Pretty much the only situation where you might trigger it without any setup roll is backstabbing an actual ally which already has dramatic and interesting consequences. quote:Also, Misguided Trust is fantastic, for the record. Et Tu, Brute? isn't so great, though - instead of +2d6 damage (a ludicrous amount), it should be +1d6 and a special effect (like "they never get a chance to defend themselves). quote:An easy fix in this case is to make Brazen Imitation a +Cha move because that's more logical anyway. Speaking of You Are Me, a fun and entirely intentional use is using it upon someone you aren't actually impersonating (though circumstances would affect how willing they're to listen to you at all). quote:The Best Plans Are Subtle should probably require a Wis roll. Kaja Rainbow fucked around with this message at 10:17 on Jun 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 10:02
|
|
|
gnome7 posted:I find it helps a lot to have a couple maps on hand. They don't need to be labeled, and actually probably should not be. Dave's Mapper is your friend here. This is great why have I never heard of this before? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 10:44
|
|
|
Mikan posted:My main gripe with Dungeon World right now, compared to tremulus/Monsterhearts/Apocalypse World, is how dense the playbooks are. A Monsterhearts skin or Apocalypse World playbook presents a compelling concept and story in 5-7 moves. A Dungeon World playbook is minimum 24. Again, I get why that is - the treadmill is a part of fantasy RPGs now, people have a certain assumption of how RPG fantasy works, DW is based on D&D, etc - but I think a more fantastical Dungeon World would thrive with smaller, more focused playbooks. A lot of the concepts that won't quite fit 24-26 moves and get awkwardly jammed into a compendium class instead would make brilliant Skin-sized playbooks. I think we'd see some cool stuff and more not-D&D stuff, but I repeat myself. I agree that I'd like to see more non-D&D derived things, but apart from Inverse World, Planarch stuff, and Jeremy Friesen's "Take On" stuff, all we seem to be seeing is a 3.x-ish wave of new classes. Personally, I'd like to see more settings, modules, expansions, things like that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 13:01
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:Personally, I'd like to see more settings, modules, expansions, things like that. Hear hear! Instead of tons of new classes, I'd rather see people making their own "Inverse" Worlds. AND NOW... a question: "Consequences vs. Difficulty" A friend of mine DM'd Dungeon World this past weekend and he started applying modifiers based on difficulty. I explained to him that the system doesn't need to work that way: that it would fit the system's theme if instead you gauge your soft and hard moves based on how easy/hard the attempted task would be. So for example: if a character wanted to do a task that the GM deemed extremely difficult: instead of applying a -1 or -2 to his roll, he'd just be more severe with his DM moves if the character failed. I think that the common counter argument is: "man I can't think of something bad on the fly all the drat time!". My counter to that is: dish out a -1 forward or -1 ongoing. At worst, dish out a debility as a consequence. Am I right in this?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 13:46
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:Just to expand on this a bit, I think my biggest issue with classes right now is that there's too many of them. I get people like making new classes, but I think we're hitting a saturation point. Part of the reason there's a huge flood of custom classes, is that they're not only easy and fun to make, there's a lot of mechanical crunch that hasn't quite been explored yet. To some extent there's a lot of crunch that can't entirely be explored in similar games like Dungeons and Dragons. Inverse World's Captain, for example, is the kind of class that would make the average Pathfinder DM's eyes bug out furiously and mumble angrily about weeaboo anime bullshit. Is the game hitting a saturation point because of it? Well, yes and no. There are so many classes that it's a little ridiculous, and a GM really needs to prune the initial selection of classes that he allows into a game. There's a lot of kind of uninspired concepts that have decent mechanical backing, and a lot of cool concepts that don't have the numbers to back them up, and some classes unfortunately don't have much of either. Even just between "the PhB," Mage, Priest, Artificer, Templar, and Inverse World, most of which are pretty universally agreed to have a place in Dungeon World, that's 20+ classes. Uncontrolled, things just get ridiculous (especially with multiclassing), but with a list in place at the beginning of the game instead of letting your players go hog wild its pretty manageable. If I can beg anyone who is going to make future content, please please please check out what already exists, and see if you can't add to what already exists instead of reinventing the wheel every time. There are straight up like, 18 guys whose entire shtick is "they are stealthy and kill dudes," including one of my own classes, and if I had a dollar for every unfinished Warlord conversion I could afford better metaphors. If your class idea truly doesn't exist, seriously, look into your heart and ask yourself truthfully if you can't make this class as a compendium class. Are there really 24 moves worth of totally unique material in your concept? Can you pare your ok-ish mandatory filler moves down into 5-7 solid gold moves that make you dread using Level Up moves because you still can't decide which move you want even though you've been staring at the sheet for a week? If you absolutely cannot, do it, make the hell out of that class. I want a copy of your class. But please, just check out what everyone else is making before you half-build a class. There's so much conceptual overlap right now that its hard to even keep the cool classes straight much less slog through the average ones. tl;dr - if you're gonna make a new class make sure it's awesome because we got like fifty million already 
EscortMission fucked around with this message at 14:42 on Jun 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 14:15
|
|
|
Rocket Ace posted:Am I right in this? In the Apocalypse World chapter about custom moves, it mentions that a bunch of playtest groups felt the way your GM does ("We need a way to make hard things harder and easy things easier!") and introduced a move that would add a bonus or penalty based on that. It also says that every playtest group that tried it threw it out because it was dumb. You shouldn't go in the opposite direction and decide that you need to base triggered GM moves on 'task difficulty', though. The consequences of a failed roll should just flow from the narrative! By their nature, dangerous tasks will have dangerous consequences.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 14:20
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:Just to expand on this a bit, I think my biggest issue with classes right now is that there's too many of them. I get people like making new classes, but I think we're hitting a saturation point. Kaja Rainbow fucked around with this message at 14:35 on Jun 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 14:28
|
|
|
I like the flexibility of the playbooks in Dungeon Planet. The Earthling class, for example, can cover many, many things, in my opinion. The only limitation is a few tropes from pulp science-fantasy. I might give a go at creating a simple setting based on something I came up with many years ago for DnD and see how that goes. I'd love to see some designer notes from the Inverse World guys on how they settled on certain things. That would be very inspirational.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 14:38
|
|
|
Rocket Ace posted:
If it the action is easy, then there's no reason to make a move or a roll at all. Anytime a player is rolling for a move implies that they're trying something difficult and there's a consequence for "failure." I'm not a fan of difficulty modifiers for any *World game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 15:22
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:Just to expand on this a bit, I think my biggest issue with classes right now is that there's too many of them. I get people like making new classes, but I think we're hitting a saturation point. Eh. I'm cool with having a ton of classes. Even if a class as a whole isn't great, there will always be good elements to steal or refine for other ideas. I don't think it's really possible to hit a saturation point on optional content and my response to "should I create Thing" is never gonna be no unless it's really, really dumb. I'm all for what EscortMission says about quality control and branching out though. To be fair, none of the third party classes are as good as my Warlock and I don't think it's right to hold them to that impossible standard  Rocket Ace posted:I'd love to see some designer notes from the Inverse World guys on how they settled on certain things. That would be very inspirational. Good news. Not only will there be a fair bit of this in the book, but folks who went in on the personalized level are going to have more of this than they could ever want. I'm sure a few of them will post details from my notes. If you go way back on my G+ page there's a bunch too. Here are a few.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 15:23
|
|
|
Mikan posted:To be fair, none of the third party classes are as good as my Warlock and I don't think it's right to hold them to that impossible standard  Sorry Mikan, the coolest class is still the Gladiator.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 15:41
|
|
|
Rocket Ace posted:"Consequences vs. Difficulty" Rather than adding modifiers to difficult tasks, I've seen it been done by having difficult tasks require more rolls. If you want to leap from your airship and stab the dragon in the face, instead of:  : "I leap off and stab the dragon in the face!" : "Ok, roll Defy Danger +Dex, but that's super hard so take -2": "I got a 7!": "You jump and grab onto one of its horns, driving your sword into its skull - roll your damage. But it roars in pain and jerks its head violently, throwing you into the clouds below"I would do: : "I leap off and stab the dragon in the face!": "You brace against the prow of the ship and launch yourself off. Defy danger with +Dex to see if you make it": "I got a 10!": "You manage to grab onto its horns as it swoops past the ship, diving downward through the clouds, but you're hanging on with one hand and it's rolling to try and shake you off. What do you do?": "I use my free hand to pull my dagger from my belt and stab it through its skull!": "Roll Defy Danger with +Str": "8!": "Your little dagger can't quite punch through its armour, but you manage to brace a foot against its head and peel off one of its scales, exposing the hide beneath. It roars in pain and jerks its head violently, and you barely manage to keep your hand on its horn - your dagger flies from your grip and drops away into the clouds. What do you do?": "I pull an arrow from my quiver and stab it down into the exposed head!": "Roll Hack & Slash": "9!": "Your arrowhead breaks off in the dragon's skull, and it screeches in agony as thick blood gouts from the wound - roll your damage. But it jerks its head violently and your grip fails, throwing you into the clouds below."Not only is this more granular (because you can see where in the process of stabbing the dragon in the face that you hosed up) but it represents the mounting challenge of doing something risky and dangerous in a far more interesting way than a modifier would. Boing fucked around with this message at 15:47 on Jun 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 15:43
|
|
|
On the topic of move difficulty: how do you deal with moves that are obviously taking the piss? If a player wants to use a Defy Danger roll to limbo-dance through the crack under a closed door, do you just out and say 'No, that's silly'? Just saying no seems like it should be counter to a lot of the feel of the game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 15:48
|
|
|
Whybird posted:On the topic of move difficulty: how do you deal with moves that are obviously taking the piss? If a player wants to use a Defy Danger roll to limbo-dance through the crack under a closed door, do you just out and say 'No, that's silly'? Just saying no seems like it should be counter to a lot of the feel of the game. It is totally in line with the feel of the game. The fiction comes first; if there's no way to do the action they describe, then it should just not happen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 15:59
|
|
|
Lemon Curdistan posted:This is explicitly not how shapeshifter moves work. Shapeshifter moves are monster moves; they're structured like monster moves and when you spend hold to make them, they just happen. And to reiterate: having players roll for things they've used hold on (unless of course spending hold modifies another die roll in which case it's perfectly valid) is, IMO, bad form. Ratpick fucked around with this message at 22:11 on Jun 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 16:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 00:01 |
|
|
Whybird posted:On the topic of move difficulty: how do you deal with moves that are obviously taking the piss? If a player wants to use a Defy Danger roll to limbo-dance through the crack under a closed door, do you just out and say 'No, that's silly'? Just saying no seems like it should be counter to a lot of the feel of the game. And those're just the things you can do with the basic moves. Class moves open up other options, like burning down the door, teleporting or phasing through it, calling a spirit to take care of it for you, having your great big lumbering bear break it down, or whatever. Kaja Rainbow fucked around with this message at 16:07 on Jun 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 16:02
|
|