|
I'm working on a custom adventure (which may become a campaign, who knows) for some friends. I'm completely new to Dungeon World. I come from an AD&D background, so not having a 5000-word background document going into an adventure is a bit strange for me, but I'm excited about playing a more story-driven game. Unfortunately, most of my friends have very limited experience with RPG's in general. My concern is that they're going to get that "deer in the headlights" look when it's time to come up with character background and bonds during the creation phase. As a GM, how leading should I be with questions? Rather than asking "Cialis, what were your parents like?", can I ask something like "Valtrex, how did your father know Cialis' father" (which can lead to more interesting questions, depending on the answer)? Or even something more leading/undesirable, like "Fleshlight, why did your parents abandon you at a young age"? Are there any "gotchas" I should look out for during the creation phase? I've already read through the (excellent) GM's guide, but I really don't want to screw this up and turn off my friends from Dungeon World before we even start.
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 00:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 10:11 |
|
|
WhiteHowler posted:I'm working on a custom adventure (which may become a campaign, who knows) for some friends. I'm completely new to Dungeon World. I come from an AD&D background, so not having a 5000-word background document going into an adventure is a bit strange for me, but I'm excited about playing a more story-driven game. From everything I've seen, the less RPG experience you have, the faster you get into the flow of Dungeon World- It's quite intuitive. If you've already made sure there's no overlap of playbooks, then it's just a matter of making sure to tailor the obstacles to the problem solving methods people have (or deliberately against them, and force them to fumble around and cope). As for questions: "...Probably for the same reason they named you 'Fleshlight'."
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 01:30
|
|
|
In my Inverse World inspired game, the players just came across a cache of clearly evil masks with weird powers. They have (of course) decided to use the demon masks, so I've been trying to come up with a custom move. The masks are meant to be fairly powerful items that slowly corrupt their wearers. This is the first custom move I've really done for DW, so I wouldn't mind some feedback. Here's what I have so far: When you channel your will through a Demon mask, roll +Wis. On a 10+, the mask helps you in a way that fits its nature. (The masks are based on fairly simple traits - Deception, Gluttony, Hatred, Cruelty, and so on.) On a 7-9, pick two. - The mask doesn't ask for a favor in return. - The mask doesn't interpret your request according to its own goals. - You do not draw the attention of the mask's master. On a 6- The effect goes awry as the mask interprets your request. In addition, gain a corruption point as well as an experience point. As corruption points accumulate, the personality of the mask may affect its wearer. When a character has corruption points equal to half their Wisdom, then the personality bleeds over. When the character has corruption points equal to three-quarters their Wisdom, the mask is a constant input on their decisions. And when the character has equal to their Wisdom score in corruption points, the mask is essentially in control. Any feedback? Is introducing the corruption points too fiddly?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 21:49
|
|
|
I really, really like that. It doesn't need any changes at all! If you want to streamline it a bit, "the mask helps you in a way that fits its nature" and "the mask interprets your request according to its own goals." are pretty similar and could be combined to what happens on a 7+. You'd then give the option of choosing one of the remaining two 7-9 options on a 7-9 roll. I really like the Corruption mechanic. The lowest part is a bit waffly: you could tie it in to other dice rolls and say the with low corruption the mask always offers advice on any roll of a 6-, and acting on it gives +1 forwards plus one more corruption. One thing to note is the corruption might build up too slowly. At a rate of one per failure wh using an unusual custom move, it's going to be quite a long time before anyone gets to half their Wisdom. If it's proving too slow, you could make taking a point of corruption one of the 7-9 options too. The Supreme Court fucked around with this message at 22:34 on Aug 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 22:20
|
|
|
So a low level 4e game I was in is going to restart as Dungeon World. I am not sure what playbook would best fit my character though. So I thought I would ask in here, what playbook would best fit a Pacifist Cleric build?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 22:23
|
|
|
Ryuujin posted:So a low level 4e game I was in is going to restart as Dungeon World. I am not sure what playbook would best fit my character though. So I thought I would ask in here, what playbook would best fit a Pacifist Cleric build? Or maybe Elmo Oxygen's medic since it has an explicit pacifist option. Even the regular old Cleric would be fine though, really. There's a lot more wiggle room in most playbooks than people sometimes realize.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 22:46
|
|
|
Ryuujin posted:So a low level 4e game I was in is going to restart as Dungeon World. I am not sure what playbook would best fit my character though. So I thought I would ask in here, what playbook would best fit a Pacifist Cleric build? Well you could probably just take the Cleric playbook and not use him in combat. Or you can also pick up gnome7's Alternative Playbooks, which includes the Priest playbook. That playbook seems devoted to healing and doing services for his Deity, rather than doing combat in the deity's name; it also allows you to flesh out the Deity a bit more than the present Cleric does.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 22:48
|
|
|
The Lantern also has a fairly good set of non-violent options.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 23:11
|
|
|
Sionak posted:In my Inverse World inspired game, the players just came across a cache of clearly evil masks with weird powers. They have (of course) decided to use the demon masks, so I've been trying to come up with a custom move. The masks are meant to be fairly powerful items that slowly corrupt their wearers. I am actually constantly making magic items and the like for my games. Come to think of it, I keep wanting to write a class, but I'm probably better off writing moves for items and nanofronts Teonis fucked around with this message at 23:17 on Aug 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 23:15
|
|
|
Lemon Curdistan posted:The Lantern also has a fairly good set of non-violent options. Unfortunately that one's not an option. I already grabbed that one in the game. It holds surprisingly well in different settings with just a little change. Instead of part of Sola it's a fragment of the universe. On topic, Ryuujin, I think that the Medic would suit your character the best.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 23:27
|
|
|
I'm all in favor of people playing the medic, but DW is flexible enough that almost any class can be played 100% pacifist.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 23:49
|
|
|
Elmo Oxygen posted:I'm all in favor of people playing the medic, but DW is flexible enough that almost any class can be played 100% pacifist. Depending on how strictly you mean "pacifist" you can probably even do a pacifist fighter. They've got utility in moving heavy things and standing in front of dangerous objects.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 00:13
|
|
|
Elmo Oxygen posted:I'm all in favor of people playing the medic, but DW is flexible enough that almost any class can be played 100% pacifist. Especially when compared to something like 4E DnD. I mean how did you manage that?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 00:36
|
|
|
Boing posted:Especially when compared to something like 4E DnD. I mean how did you manage that? It's a special build of Cleric that only heals, buffs, and debuffs. Sort of like how a Lazylord is technically a pacifist.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 00:51
|
|
|
I have updated my Word 2007 (DOCX) Playbook template. It now has a third page for spells or other playbook rules and assets. I have also include images for the damage dice. You can delete the ones you don't need and reposition the remaining one in the correct spot. If you have an issues with it or any other feedback, let me know. https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3jBKG-w4xhFSWpRb042a1RZaTg/edit?usp=sharing
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 05:43
|
|
|
I changed my Samurai a lot. I really valued your guys input the last time around(especially Lemon Curdistan. Thanks for the big write up). I still need to work on my 6-10 moves; I don't even have enough of them. But I feel I have made a lot of progress. I added an Honor state. quote:Bushido - You live your life by a code called Bushido. Select one of the Seven Virtues of Bushido. When you act according to your chosen Virtue you become Honorable. Also, take +1 forward to parley with anyone who sees this act.(list of virtues)
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 08:01
|
|
|
Huckabee Sting posted:I changed my Samurai a lot. I really valued your guys input the last time around(especially Lemon Curdistan. Thanks for the big write up). I still need to work on my 6-10 moves; I don't even have enough of them. But I feel I have made a lot of progress. So what's a good stat spread for this guy? I think I'd need Con for Stances and extra damage, Str for H&S, and Dex for other bonuses. Unless you're making their weapon precise, in which case, I've got no problem with the spread although I think Wis might work better than Con for stances.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 08:43
|
|
|
I am not Lemon Curdistan and thus my advice will probably be less useful in Dungeon World related matters, but here's some feedback based on the latest draft of the Samurai. I think a better approach to the Take a Stance move's 7-9 outcome would be "you adopt the stance but there is a flaw in it." It isn't really any more detailed than "you expose yourself to danger," but to me it seems like it's more flavorful for a playbook build around stances in a chanbara sort of way. Also the move has no 6- outcome. Even if the result of a failure is "you fail to adopt the stance" this should be spelled out. Perhaps something like, "on a 6- your spirit is unbalanced. You can no longer enter the chosen stance until you have spent several hours in practice and meditation." On the stances themselves, the starting two seem a little clunky to me. On the Fire Stance I wonder if it would be better to simply say "attacks against you gain Piercing 2" rather than the way you currently have it. Meanwhile Earth Stance just seems kind of fiddly...the +1 Defend is fine but the Defy Danger using Con is rather specific. I think it might be better to replace that with "gain 2 Armor" or "ignore the Forceful tag" but that's just me. I'm neutral on the stance dropping your damage die to a d4, I don't feel like that's bad per se, just kind of unusual. Maybe "all damage you deal is halved" instead? That said, they also seem a little flavorless. I know this is a draft and still a work in progress but I remember Gnome talking about working on IW playbooks and how he realized that moves that did things like "your attacks do +1d4 damage" are good moves in the sense that they are a useful, beneficial thing that some players will definitely want, but that they're also just sort of bland and there, y'know? So to help with this he added some additional fiction to them in order to both give players and GMs more of an idea of how the move slots into the fiction as well as just to make them more flavorful in general. So taking Fire Stance for example, you could say something like When you attack with the reckless, destructive passion of fire, your attacks deal extra damage equal to your Dex bonus, etc. etc. I admit I'm not entirely sure how For Your Own Good fits in with the whole samurai theme. Like, hitting someone for their own good isn't one of the first things my mind leaps to when I think "samurai." Y'know what this playbook needs as a starting move? A way to initiate duels with someone. That is a very samurai thing, and it would also give you another way to play with the honor/dishonor mechanic. Hmmmm... When you challenge a notable foe to face you in honorable combat, roll +Cha. Take +1 to the roll if you are Honorable, -1 if you are Dishonored. On a hit your opponent readily agrees to face you in single combat. Take +1 ongoing to moves made against or in response to that enemy until one of you is defeated but if you attack anyone else until that occurs you become Dishonored. On a 10+ other enemies respect the duel as well. On a 7-9 other enemies aren't so swayed by notions of honorable combat and may attempt to interfere. On a 6- your opponent scorns you, and you may not use this move again for the rest of the fight.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 08:55
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:Also the move has no 6- outcome. Even if the result of a failure is "you fail to adopt the stance" this should be spelled out. This is bad advice! There is always an implicit outcome on a miss for every move, which is "the GM makes a hard move." You don't need to spell it out, and "okay, you stumble and lose your concentration, you're not in a stance any more" is a perfectly valid hard move that flows naturally from the move itself. There's no real need to waste space explaining that on a failure you in fact fail. Kai Tave posted:the +1 Defend is fine but the Defy Danger using Con is rather specific. I think it might be better to replace that with "gain 2 Armor" or "ignore the Forceful tag" but that's just me. +2 armor is huge, and DW struggles enough as it is with players who have different levels of armour without adding a situation in which one class has 4 armour compared to everyone's 1 armour. Ignoring the Forceful (and possibly Messy) tag is a good idea, though. Generally, I feel that in my original feedback the penalties I assigned to each stance were too high, since they're basically starting moves. Fire should have been -1 armour, and Earth should have been "your damage die is 1d6." Kai Tave posted:On the Fire Stance I wonder if it would be better to simply say "attacks against you gain Piercing 2" rather than the way you currently have it. (...) I'm neutral on the stance dropping your damage die to a d4, I don't feel like that's bad per se, just kind of unusual. Maybe "all damage you deal is halved" instead? Making enemies gain 2 piercing against you is much more fiddly than just having a flat malus to armour, though. Ditto halving damage vs. having a lower damage die. Changing damage die size is something the Battlemind also does as part of a stance (albeit an increase in the Battlemind's case), and it's fairly simple to go "I'm in Earth stance, therefore I should only roll 1d6 damage" rather than divide everything by two as you roll it. It's also a lot more elegant than either halving damage or a straight -2/-1 to damage (which corresponds to 2/1 steps down on the die size ladder when you look at average damage). Huckabee Sting posted:I changed my Samurai a lot. Take A Stance: so like I said just above, I think my penalties were too harsh the first time around. I'd make the penalty for Fire stance -1 armour, and the penalty for Earth stance 1d6 damage die. Kai Tave is right that the bonuses for Earth stance are kind of fiddly, but as mentioned I'm trying to avoid +armour. The DD bonus fits the fiction, which is why I think it can stay, but it could probably do with rephrasing: Earth stance: while in this stance, you take +1 to Defend and to Defying Danger by toughing it out and you ignore the forceful tag on enemy attacks, but your damage die is 1d6. Bushido: this overlaps rather a lot with alignment/drive. A bunch of these would make great drive moves (Courage = "challenge a foe that is stronger than you to personal combat," Honesty = "tell the truth when a lie would be more convenient" and Charity = "share a reward you have earned with someone more needy") but I don't think this really works as a starting move. Regarding the whole Honourable/Dishonourable thing: I'm in two minds about this. On the one hand, it's an interesting and innovative mechanic that could work with some care. On the other, it doesn't fit the fiction (you don't flip between honour and dishonour in the span of a single move) and it really complicates the class. All in all I feel it's not actually a good fit for the Samurai, but it could work as a mechanic for e.g. a class that flips between light and dark magic or whatever, as long as going either way is equally easy). Since you're making a fantasy honourable warrior and not a real member of the Japanese feudal nobility, why does your warrior have to follow the actual Bushido code? Why not have Bushido (or call it Way of the Warrior or whatever) be a move about building your own warrior's code and getting a small bonus for following it ("as long as you do not violate the tenets of your code, [benefit goes here]")? I'm pretty sure something similar has been done before but I can't find it right now, so instead here's my Assassin's "you have a code" move: The Creed posted:You have sworn to abide by a code of conduct, and its strictures guide you in your work. Describe your creed. When your obedience to your code endangers that which you hold dear, choose one: The move as a whole wouldn't fit the Samurai, but something similar would probably work. Alternatively, you could write a variation on the Paladin's Quest move. Battle Tactics/Tactician: with Honour/Dishonour gone, this doesn't work any more. For Your Own Good: this doesn't feel like it's a fictionally-appropriate ability. As an advance, maybe, but not as a starting move. Art of War was fine and I don't know why you got rid of it. Water Stance and Wind Stance: I'm guessing you intend these moves to give you new stances but that's not clear from how they're worded, these just seem like they buff water/wind stance but those don't exist. If they're giving you new stances, you should definitely build the stances along a similar model to the Fire/Earth ones. Also, Wind stance should probably give reach instead of near if it's a constant thing since near isn't a melee range tag. Flanking Strike: too much damage, and conditional on the Honour system. As a general note, don't hand out +Dex to damage as part of moves. It's the whole point of Fire stance. Blade Expert: nickel-and-dime. Instead, I'd make this the "you can be in two stances at once" advance, and make Blade Master a 6-10 Requires move that lets you ignore the drawbacks of one stance you're in. Ride the Wind needs to stay and be as I described it last time, since it plays very well with the Samurai using Dex as his attack stat. Not sure why you took it out. Dirty Fighting: ignoring the fact that I recommend getting rid of the Honour system: you need to spend one of your precious few advances on getting this move. It should not have both a rare trigger (12+) and a penalty in the Honour system. As general advice, you balance powerful advanced moves with either a rare trigger or a cost, not both. In this case, it should have been 10+ and Dishonour, or 12+; not 12+ and Dishonour. That said, with the removal of the Honour system I'm not sure if it fits thematically, other than as a clear homage to chanbara (if that's the intention then it can totally stay as 12+, no penalty). Stance Dance: my recommendation was to make it happen on a hit, not make it trigger even more rarely by making it happen on a 12+! Battle Instincts: this is the Thief move Shoot First with a tie-in to the Honour system. Taking moves from other classes is generally a bad idea, and obviously I suggest removing Honour. Unmoved Mover: is fine, even without the Honour bonus. Backdraft: Honour bonus not needed. Line My Purse: 2d10 gold is a tiny amount, and Honour system. I don't think this is a good move at all. If you want a variation on a similar theme (which I don't think you should, because it doesn't fit the "honourable warrior" thing) you would make it a move like this: quote:Line My Purse Dividing Currents: I don't think a straight upgrade to the damage you deal with Water Stance is a good thing; maybe think of another bonus they could get. Way of the Warrior: just use this as the name for the new warrior's-code- or Quest-esque Bushido move I recommended. Seppuku: this is a good death move., so keep it as it is! It shouldn't be an advance, though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 11:01
|
|
|
Lemon Curdistan posted:Since you're making a fantasy honourable warrior and not a real member of the Japanese feudal nobility, why does your warrior have to follow the actual Bushido code? Why not have Bushido (or call it Way of the Warrior or whatever) be a move about building your own warrior's code and getting a small bonus for following it ("as long as you do not violate the tenets of your code, [benefit goes here]")? The Warrior from the first Grim Portents has something like this...you pick between two and four part of your code and that becomes the maximum amount of Fury you can hold at a time. If you break your code you can't hold Fury until you undertake a quest for redemption.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 11:37
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:The Warrior from the first Grim Portents has something like this...you pick between two and four part of your code and that becomes the maximum amount of Fury you can hold at a time. If you break your code you can't hold Fury until you undertake a quest for redemption. Bingo; that's what I was thinking of. Thanks. I don't suggest lifting the Fury mechanic because I don't think it was very good, but the basic code part was fine IIRC. Lemon-Lime fucked around with this message at 12:01 on Aug 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 11:52
|
|
|
The Supreme Court posted:I really, really like that. It doesn't need any changes at all! If you want to streamline it a bit, "the mask helps you in a way that fits its nature" and "the mask interprets your request according to its own goals." are pretty similar and could be combined to what happens on a 7+. You'd then give the option of choosing one of the remaining two 7-9 options on a 7-9 roll. This is really helpful, and hits exactly the sort of feel I was looking for. I especially like the idea of that "+1 bonus due to advice, but more corruption as part of the deal" for 6- rolls. It definitely evokes the shadowy tempter role. Awesome, thanks for the feedback. Sionak fucked around with this message at 22:49 on Aug 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 22:30
|
|
|
I'm running my first Dungeon World adventure this weekend, and I think I've prepared just enough. I have a basic adventure front with a few dangers that can be interwoven as desired, some maps (with blanks!), and a basic introduction/background. There are even a couple of new monsters with neat custom moves. I also have a huge repository of other background information about the world/setting (written years ago for a never-run D&D campaign), but I'd prefer to let most of those details be filled in during the game, so I doubt I'll use much of it. One question I have for you veteran GM's: Do you use miniatures at all during your games? I understand that Dungeon World's combat system is supposed to be loose and fiction-driven, and I really like that. However, I'm worried about losing track of where people are when there's a lot of action going on. Obviously one wouldn't use a hard and fast miniatures system (none of that annoying "I can move back five squares -- uh oh, now I'm one square out of range for my crossbow" garbage), but I'm wondering if anyone has successfully used miniatures to depict a Dungeon World encounter without sacrificing the fiction. Is it better to just keep quick notes on approximately where everyone/everything is in relationship to each other?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 17:10
|
|
|
I... hmm. Out of curiosity, has there been an Alchemist playbook? The closest one I've found is the Artificer. Mostly, I'd like to get my group to switch from a d20 game to Dungeon World, but one of them has a Mad Alchemist. Or do you think the Artificer would cover his role?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 17:15
|
|
|
WhiteHowler posted:One question I have for you veteran GM's: Do you use miniatures at all during your games? Yes and no. We use a chessex mat in our game so the players have a quick and easy way to map out the dungeon and scribble down notes. If the action sequences get convoluted, we throw some character representation out there (minis, tokens, beer caps, the hosts' toddler's toys) for clarity, but we're never really finicky about it. Combat in DW is very fast and rarely needs to get bogged down too much in tactics or spatial relationship. If the player and the GM have different ideas about what's happening ("I thought you were by X, not Y." "No I was at Y, not X, you just didn't hear me."), which happens pretty regularly at my 7 person table, it's nothing but a minor speedbump and a quick compromise gets the fiction back on track. Kerzoro posted:Mostly, I'd like to get my group to switch from a d20 game to Dungeon World, but one of them has a Mad Alchemist. Or do you think the Artificer would cover his role? If he's a healy-type Alchemist, maybe look at the Medic? It has some alchemy moves and a "build" that is more mad scientist/Mr. Hyde. Elmo Oxygen fucked around with this message at 17:52 on Aug 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 17:50
|
|
|
Kerzoro posted:I... hmm. Out of curiosity, has there been an Alchemist playbook? The closest one I've found is the Artificer. You could see if an artificer with chemical-themed "gadgets" would work. On the other hand, The Witch has probably the best potion-making move thus far. Maybe grab that as a multiclass move from Artificer or Medic?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 17:53
|
|
|
WhiteHowler posted:One question I have for you veteran GM's: Do you use miniatures at all during your games? Kerzoro posted:I... hmm. Out of curiosity, has there been an Alchemist playbook? The closest one I've found is the Artificer. Edit: Just saw the class on the D&D wiki. Yeah, the Artificer would probably be pretty close to that. ImpactVector fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Aug 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 17:56
|
|
|
A rough draft of an Alchemist class was brought up a few pages ago. Don't know if it was ever refined, but it seems to work on the same principles as the Artificer as far as creating potions based on tags.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 18:06
|
|
|
That's my Alchemist; it's been redrafted and is nearly ready to go! I posted an updated preview on the google+ community two days ago, will post it here later tonight. It should hopefully be what you're looking for; a huge variety of potions with different effects and some moves for using them in awesome ways (eg firebreathing)
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 19:14
|
|
|
What playbooks would you guys consider must-haves?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 21:27
|
|
|
I added a couple more advanced moves to the Fortune Hunter. While the point of the class is to rely on the basic and special moves available to every class as much as possible, I thought that ending up with 9-10 habits if you don't care about multiclassing could make a character a bit scattershot roleplaying wise, so I added the Driven and Social Chameleon moves. All they do is allow you to pick up the drives/backgrounds you didn't choose at character creation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 23:06
|
|
|
zarathud posted:I have updated my Word 2007 (DOCX) Playbook template. It now has a third page for spells or other playbook rules and assets. I have also include images for the damage dice. You can delete the ones you don't need and reposition the remaining one in the correct spot. If you have an issues with it or any other feedback, let me know. Now in Open Office format as well: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3jBKG-w4xhFdmFqQ2xRS3FRdEk/edit?usp=sharing
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 20:14
|
|
|
zarathud posted:Now in Open Office format as well: This is awesome, thankyou for doing it! I've spent hours this last week fiddling in inkscape, been a total pain. This would have saved so much time! I'll definitely use it next time. For Elderbean, I reckon gnome's Mage is pretty indispensable, and with the basic classes makes for a great selection. I really like The Slayer and lemoncurdistan's City Thief too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 23:20
|
|
|
The link in the OP is out of date, so if you want the City Thief it's here: http://db.tt/3h3r3yab Ironic that of the three classes I've created, the one people like the most is the one that is only 30% my material.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 23:39
|
|
|
Lemon Curdistan posted:The link in the OP is out of date, so if you want the City Thief it's here: http://db.tt/3h3r3yab It's probably because Thief is a pretty core class, and City Thief brings it "up to date" with the conventions of newer classes. Avoid the Light is probably the single best addition to the playbook, because it's so fundamental and powerful. My only complaint about it would be Mechanical Eye, because it comes with a lot more narrative baggage- it requires them to get an eye actually replaced. Handgun Phonics fucked around with this message at 07:41 on Sep 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 07:38
|
|
|
Handgun Phonics posted:My only complaint about it would be Mechanical Eye, because it comes with a lot more narrative baggage- it requires them to get an eye actually replaced. Would a clockwork mask like Corvo's from Dishonored work equally well? Maybe goggles?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 07:44
|
|
|
InfiniteJesters posted:Would a clockwork mask like Corvo's from Dishonored work equally well? Maybe goggles? It could, or, honestly, just making it "really good eyesight," since most of the other moves are simply innate ability. When I used it for a game, I ended up replacing Mechanical Eye with an amalgam of most of the removed poison moves, since the player liked the idea of using poisons.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 08:08
|
|
|
InfiniteJesters posted:Would a clockwork mask like Corvo's from Dishonored work equally well? Maybe goggles? Those would be gear. Mechanical Eye is there because it's an obvious shout-out to the source, but its flavour doesn't really fit the rest of the playbook. I'll most likely rename it to either Darkvision or The Shine (even though Riddick is a more appropriate inspiration source for the Assassin). e; This is what I'm changing Mechanical Eye to: quote:Darkvision Same move, different name and fictional justification (everything is better with Deus Ex references). Lemon-Lime fucked around with this message at 09:49 on Sep 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 08:12
|
|
|
Does anyone know if there's any good podcasts that play this? I'm giving up on getting people around a table to play and want to live vicariously through people talking.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 08:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 10:11 |
|
|
The Walking Eye has done a couple of podcasts. One set was while the game was in development, the other was a bit more recent. I don't exactly care for them because their sessions are so short, but they're also the only Dungeon World games I've been able to find.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 09:02
|
|
