|
gradenko_2000 posted:Is it not the case that Dungeon World gives the GM codified options for granting bonuses and controlling outcomes based on declared fluff? Yes, but they work a lot better when each roll has a meaningful story impact, which they can't when each player is rolling a minimum of 3-4 times per combat, fluffing each attempt to do a thing, especially when their action already has a very explicitly stated effect. At best, you're allowing the players to modify enemy behavior by standing between the demon and the mage. Most of the time, you're not going to get more than a +1/-1 to your roll, because the GM isn't going to be able to keep track of half a dozen fluffed stratagems in a combat and give each one a meaningful effect, especially when most combat moves already have an explicit effect. In either case, any such are entirely in the GMs hands, something goons like to complain about in other systems. e: It probably doesn't crop up so bad in PbP, but in live DungeonWorld, it's really hard to come up with partial success/failure effects on the fly when people are spamming rolls in combat without repeating or second guessing yourself. It's the big reason I feel that the *world system should always resolve intents with a single roll. fool of sound fucked around with this message at 03:56 on Aug 9, 2015 |
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 03:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 16:15 |
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:That's what I meant when I said "Come up with 16 ways to say 'I hit it with my sword". It's all just empty RP when there's no real benefit to your described maneuverings, either in terms of dice or real narrative control, a la FATE Compels. There's no real reward for creativity, and certainly no mechanical strategies to be had, so combat is nothing but cotton candy: tastes good for a moment, but leaves you unsatisfied. I think this is flat-out wrong, personally. If the group's fighter says "I swing my hammer straight into the assassin's kneecap", this could still be a Hack and Slash move, if what he wanted was to do damage. But it also has a narrative impact, since if he succeeds in hitting the assassin, it doesn't make very much sense if the GM then says the assassin does some cool parkour to flip over the fighter and try to stab the wizard or whatever. He just took a hammer to the knee, he should be limping from that. Maybe if the assassin was some weird Thin Man from x-com thing that twisted its body to move in ways no human should, then having it flip around after being kneecapped would still make sense. Similarly, stabbing a brass golem with a knife doesn't make sense, and wouldn't even have a Hack and Slash rule. Trying to use that knife to pry apart the brass scales, giving an opening to the mechanical parts behind them? Sure, that will work, but you'll need someone to distract the golem first, unless you want to risk getting hugged by a brass golem.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 03:55
|
|
|
Astus posted:I think this is flat-out wrong, personally. If the group's fighter says "I swing my hammer straight into the assassin's kneecap", this could still be a Hack and Slash move, if what he wanted was to do damage. But it also has a narrative impact, since if he succeeds in hitting the assassin, it doesn't make very much sense if the GM then says the assassin does some cool parkour to flip over the fighter and try to stab the wizard or whatever. He just took a hammer to the knee, he should be limping from that. Maybe if the assassin was some weird Thin Man from x-com thing that twisted its body to move in ways no human should, then having it flip around after being kneecapped would still make sense. I addressed this in the post right above you, but 100% of that is in the GMs hands; trying to do anything interesting in DungeonWorld is a game of 'GM may I?, and thus the main 'mechanic' of DungeonWorld is convincing your GM to let you get away with as much as possible, because there are no satisfactory combat mechanics to fall back on. This is fine out of combat, where rolls are supposed to all have story impact, but in combat this quickly leads to GM fatigue when players are asking you to adjudicate multiple special actions every turn. e: Basically, the narrative is there, but players have no direct control over it, other than suggesting things to the GM, and as such it isn't really a mechanic in the same sense as the narrative control granted to the players by FATE points. This wouldn't be a problem if they could use the explicit mechanics to achieve narrative control, but in DW those mechanics are woefully light; just the racial ability, maybe one or two starting moves, and maybe two or three advanced moves. fool of sound fucked around with this message at 04:06 on Aug 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 04:01
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:I addressed this in the post right above you, but 100% of that is in the GMs hands; trying to do anything interesting in DungeonWorld is a game of 'GM may I?, and thus the main 'mechanic' of DungeonWorld is convincing your GM to let you get away with as much as possible, because there are no satisfactory combat mechanics to fall back on. This is fine out of combat, where rolls are supposed to all have story impact, but in combat this quickly leads to GM fatigue when players are asking you to adjudicate multiple special actions every turn. Hahaha. Wow.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 04:05
|
|
|
Error 404 posted:Hahaha. Wow. Don't be shy, I'd love to hear your response. e: Error 404 posted:Also the creator is working with Adam Koebel on a pbta RQ game. Actually maybe I wouldn't.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 04:08
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:Yes, but they work a lot better when each roll has a meaningful story impact, which they can't when each player is rolling a minimum of 3-4 times per combat, fluffing each attempt to do a thing, especially when their action already has a very explicitly stated effect. At best, you're allowing the players to modify enemy behavior by standing between the demon and the mage. Most of the time, you're not going to get more than a +1/-1 to your roll, because the GM isn't going to be able to keep track of half a dozen fluffed stratagems in a combat and give each one a meaningful effect, especially when most combat moves already have an explicit effect. In either case, any such are entirely in the GMs hands, something goons like to complain about in other systems. I guess the way I would phrase it is that in D&D, if a Thief wants to scale a wall, we resolve the entire action as a single roll to successfully scale the wall or not (or some partial success state), but if a Fighter wants to smash a Skeleton Warrior, we have to break it down into multiple granular "combat skill check vs armor difficulty class" rolls because it's accepted that D&D is about combat and thus combat needs to be granular. Certainly we could do the same with the Thief rolling for every hand-hold on the way up the wall, but it'd only be thematically appropriate if we were playing Sly Stallone's Cliffhanger: The RPG. Does Apoc World or other PBTA games resolve combat in a faster manner?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I guess the way I would phrase it is that in D&D, if a Thief wants to scale a wall, we resolve the entire action as a single roll to successfully scale the wall or not (or some partial success state), but if a Fighter wants to smash a Skeleton Warrior, we have to break it down into multiple granular "combat skill check vs armor difficulty class" rolls because it's accepted that D&D is about combat and thus combat needs to be granular. Most of the PBTA games I've seen resolves 'I fight the thing' as a single die roll (or a short series of opposed rolls representing gaining and losing the upper hand), with the standard failure/partial/success roll with standard narrative impact. DW is trying to emulate D&D and similar, so it breaks off it's combat mechanics from the other systems, centralizes the game on them, and requires multiple rolls per fight (substantially more than the second version above) using damage/hp/special effects.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 04:13
|
|
|
I've found that DW works best when everything the players do is a direct response to something the GM is throwing at them. You avoid having the players say "I hack and slash *roll*" by never asking them 'You're in a fight, what do you do?' To function properly, the GM needs to constantly be putting the PCs in a spot. Instead of 'It's your turn, what do you do?' it's always something like 'Cleric, the orc is bearing down at you, swinging its axe in an overhead cleave, what do?' 'Rogue, the cleric has an axe in his head and the orc is laughing in triumph, what do?' I do agree than an improved DW should probably either condense combat into fewer rolls, or give a more robust selection of basic actions if it wants to stay zoomed in. gradenko_2000 posted:I guess the way I would phrase it is that in D&D, if a Thief wants to scale a wall, we resolve the entire action as a single roll to successfully scale the wall or not (or some partial success state), but if a Fighter wants to smash a Skeleton Warrior, we have to break it down into multiple granular "combat skill check vs armor difficulty class" rolls because it's accepted that D&D is about combat and thus combat needs to be granular. Yeah, AW prefers to focus on what the actual objective of the fight is, and you roll once to figure out how effectively you achieved that goal, and at what cost. An entire running shootout could be represented by a single seize by force roll to get into the warlord's penthouse, or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:Most of the PBTA games I've seen resolves 'I fight the thing' as a single die roll (or a short series of opposed rolls representing gaining and losing the upper hand), with the standard failure/partial/success roll with standard narrative impact. DW is trying to emulate D&D and similar, so it breaks off it's combat mechanics from the other systems, centralizes the game on them, and requires multiple rolls per fight (substantially more than the second version above) using damage/hp/special effects. Serious question: have you ever actually played Dungeon World?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
Tendales posted:I've found that DW works best when everything the players do is a direct response to something the GM is throwing at them. You avoid having the players say "I hack and slash *roll*" by never asking them 'You're in a fight, what do you do?' To function properly, the GM needs to constantly be putting the PCs in a spot. Instead of 'It's your turn, what do you do?' it's always something like 'Cleric, the orc is bearing down at you, swinging its axe in an overhead cleave, what do?' 'Rogue, the cleric has an axe in his head and the orc is laughing in triumph, what do?' Aren't storygames supposed to take off the burden of narrating from the GM lol
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 04:23
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:Most of the PBTA games I've seen resolves 'I fight the thing' as a single die roll (or a short series of opposed rolls representing gaining and losing the upper hand), with the standard failure/partial/success roll with standard narrative impact. DW is trying to emulate D&D and similar, so it breaks off it's combat mechanics from the other systems, centralizes the game on them, and requires multiple rolls per fight (substantially more than the second version above) using damage/hp/special effects. Interesting. I'm thinking now of a model where if we consider a dungeon crawl as the attempted accumulation of wealth against the steady depletion of limited camping/spellcasting/health resources, then "is good at Fighting" is a resource to be spent in the same way that "has a spell slot to end a tough fight instantly" can be. A skeleton warrior would be a drain on the party's resources similar to how an undetected and triggered arrow trap would shoot someone for 1d6 damage. You need the Fighter to kill the monster much like you need the Thief to stop the trap, but the Fighter can only "rage" or activate their "be really good at fighting" ability so many times per day, and outside of that it's a random roll where he's going to take chip damage. After you've failed one too many detect traps, rolled mediocre on one too many "single roll combats", used up all your spellcaster's spells and your fighter's martial exploits, and run out of supplies you need to bed down for a few hours to get some partial healing and squeeze out a few more spells and exploits, you have to head for the exit (and god help you if you're so deep in that you draw multiple wandering monsters and have to do even more straight/umodified single combat rolls). gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 04:27 on Aug 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 04:25
|
|
|
Error 404 posted:Serious question: have you ever actually played Dungeon World? Spare me your patronizing fanboyism, thanks. I've both played and run DungeonWorld and other story-based and retroclone systems. I thought DungeonWorld failed at both. gradenko_2000 posted:Interesting. I'm thinking now of a model where if we consider a dungeon crawl as the attempted accumulation of wealth against the steady depletion of limited camping/spellcasting/health resources, then "is good at Fighting" is a resource to be spent in the same way that "has a spell slot to end a tough fight instantly" can be. This is what DungeonWorld is trying to do, but disproportionately focuses on the combat aspects (because that's what D&D does) without also adding disproportional amounts of content to the combat mechanics (which D&D also does). If it was less focused on combat, it could be good; if it had more codified combat options, it could also be good. fool of sound fucked around with this message at 04:34 on Aug 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 04:30
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:I addressed this in the post right above you, but 100% of that is in the GMs hands; trying to do anything interesting in DungeonWorld is a game of 'GM may I?, and thus the main 'mechanic' of DungeonWorld is convincing your GM to let you get away with as much as possible, because there are no satisfactory combat mechanics to fall back on. This is fine out of combat, where rolls are supposed to all have story impact, but in combat this quickly leads to GM fatigue when players are asking you to adjudicate multiple special actions every turn. I agree, but I think 'this requires too much of the DM' is different than 'this makes combat not interesting'. At the same time, how is convincing your GM to let you get away with as much as possible something that's strictly a combat issue? Shouldn't you have the same issue with 'skill-type' rolls (basically anything out of combat)? Regarding the hate this board has for GM-may-I, I think it's more an issue with games that have a disparity between classes in this regard. I don't think anyone has an issue with everyone having to play that way, they just have an issue when the Fighter has to beg the GM and the wizard just gets to say 'I do X'. Edit: ^ Do you have a game in mind that does this particularly well? IT BEGINS fucked around with this message at 04:38 on Aug 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 04:36
|
|
|
IT BEGINS posted:I agree, but I think 'this requires too much of the DM' is different than 'this makes combat not interesting'. At the same time, how is convincing your GM to let you get away with as much as possible something that's strictly a combat issue? Shouldn't you have the same issue with 'skill-type' rolls (basically anything out of combat)? It's only a problem because DungeonWorld has a lot more combat rolls, with individually less story impact, than anything else.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
TheLovablePlutonis posted:Aren't storygames supposed to take off the burden of narrating from the GM lol Yes, they are, but DW wasn't designed as a story game, it was designed to be OSR. It just happened to get very popular with the story gaming crowd. I think my biggest dislike of DW as someone who wrote for it for over a year is how Hit Points and rolling random damage work together. Sometimes basic enemies can take ages because nobody rolls higher than a 2 on damage, even if they roll 10+ on everything else so the enemy poses no threat. And sometimes a boss monster will go down in one hit because someone rolled max damage on their first attack. It's really swingy and there's no real control there. The game isn't gritty enough for a hit point mechanic to be worthwhile, and hit points are very low in general so how good that d8 hits the table can make a huge difference on how long a fight goes on for. gradenko_2000 posted:Interesting. I'm thinking now of a model where if we consider a dungeon crawl as the attempted accumulation of wealth against the steady depletion of limited camping/spellcasting/health resources, then "is good at Fighting" is a resource to be spent in the same way that "has a spell slot to end a tough fight instantly" can be. This is definitely a Good Idea worth exploring further, I think.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
gnome7 posted:I think my biggest dislike of DW as someone who wrote for it for over a year is how Hit Points and rolling random damage work together. Sometimes basic enemies can take ages because nobody rolls higher than a 2 on damage, even if they roll 10+ on everything else so the enemy poses no threat. And sometimes a boss monster will go down in one hit because someone rolled max damage on their first attack. It's really swingy and there's no real control there. The game isn't gritty enough for a hit point mechanic to be worthwhile, and hit points are very low in general so how good that d8 hits the table can make a huge difference on how long a fight goes on for. I'm surprised it doesn't have a minions/mooks mechanic. I don't have much experience in this, but I feel like the issue with max damage stems largely from playbooks like the Fighter, which have a ton of ways to pump their damage. A game focused on narrative combat should have less ways of making your numbers go off the charts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 04:41
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:Most of the PBTA games I've seen resolves 'I fight the thing' as a single die roll (or a short series of opposed rolls representing gaining and losing the upper hand), with the standard failure/partial/success roll with standard narrative impact. DW is trying to emulate D&D and similar, so it breaks off it's combat mechanics from the other systems, centralizes the game on them, and requires multiple rolls per fight (substantially more than the second version above) using damage/hp/special effects. I guess it just didn't go far *enough*? DM: "Your party arrives in front of The Floating Caves of Danger, where the Three-Headed Amoeba King and his armies are hoarding treasure and threatening the Gnomish Isles! There is a barred crystal door sealing the entrance! What's your first move?!?" Player: "Hmm... I don't really want to, y'know... "Interact with things"? Ill just make a "Complete the dungeon" move!" *rolls a 7* DM: "Ok, Elfrick the Elf dies (sorry, Steve), but you go through the Caves and defeat the Amoeba King. Everyone gets 1,000 coin and a level. Well, that was fun... see you all next week?"
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
gnome7 posted:Yes, they are, but DW wasn't designed as a story game, it was designed to be OSR. It just happened to get very popular with the story gaming crowd. It was designed with the PbTA rules and intended to be a retroclone because that's like making a tractor with a motorcycle chassis.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:Spare me your patronizing fanboyism, thanks. Nice condescension there, try not to cut yourself on your own edginess. E: your argument is basically: Simian_Prime posted:I guess it just didn't go far *enough*? Error 404 fucked around with this message at 04:45 on Aug 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
Error 404 posted:Nice condescension there, try not to cut yourself on your own edginess. Mods? Can someone deal with this troll?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 04:44
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:I addressed this in the post right above you, but 100% of that is in the GMs hands; trying to do anything interesting in DungeonWorld is a game of 'GM may I?, and thus the main 'mechanic' of DungeonWorld is convincing your GM to let you get away with as much as possible, because there are no satisfactory combat mechanics to fall back on. This is fine out of combat, where rolls are supposed to all have story impact, but in combat this quickly leads to GM fatigue when players are asking you to adjudicate multiple special actions every turn. Except one of the guiding GM principles is "Begin and end with the fiction", and another is "Be a fan of the characters". And these principles are one of the first things in the GM chapter, and aren't meant to be read as "suggestions for good GM's", they are the rules the GM has to follow. The game straight-up does not function if you do not follow the principles. A lot of people have trouble at first when they GM Dungeon World, because they assume this is just the same GM Advice chapter every game has, but the game is actually written around things like "always follow the fiction". quote:When you make a move what you’re actually doing is taking an element of the fiction and bringing it to bear against the characters. Your move should always follow from the fiction. They help you focus on one aspect of the current situation and do something interesting with it. What’s going on? What move makes sense here? quote:Everything you and the players do in Dungeon World comes from and leads to fictional events. When the players make a move, they take a fictional action to trigger it, apply the rules, and get a fictional effect. When you make a move it always comes from the fiction. The example I gave earlier of "Fighter kneecaps an assassin, GM does not have the assassin flip out" isn't a thing you need to ask your GM permission for. The fiction says the assassin isn't capable of flipping out, so the assassin does not flip out. The fiction is actually more important than any mechanics in the game, and you can tell just how much the designers stress this by reading the GM section and making a note of how many times they use the word "fiction". Or just by actually reading the GM section, since they aren't exactly subtle about this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 04:52
|
|
|
Simian_Prime posted:I guess it just didn't go far *enough*? You're not wrong. That is, it's possible to simplify the results of a dungeon crawl down to a single roll if you really wanted to, but in general you do that sort of thing to any activity where the granularity doesn't matter and isn't the focus of the game. The scenario you're describing would be absolutely acceptable if you were playing Dungeoneering Party Manager 2015 and the point was to form a top-notch high fantasy party. Steve's Elf didn't EDIT: my point is that DW makes its combat granular for seemingly no other reason than because D&D's combat is granular (on top of DW already adopting multiple D&D-isms for what I can only presume are similar reasons), without understanding that you don't need to do that to replicate the feel of an OSR-style dungeon crawl, especially when you have a base mechanic like PBTA. gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 05:22 on Aug 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 04:58
|
|
|
Simian_Prime posted:I guess it just didn't go far *enough*? Error 404 posted:Hahaha. Wow.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 05:00
|
|
|
Don't we have a Dungeon World thread this discussion should be taking place in?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 05:02
|
|
|
IT BEGINS posted:I think there's a difference between fluffing your actions and having the fluff be your actions. Take, for example, this fight, starting on post 186, that I often see linked to in DW threads. Maybe it's a failing of the particular systems I've played (or my own imagination), but I can't think of a way to mimic this kind of fight in D&D mechanically. I could do it, but my method of doing so would be to make a bunch of rolls just like that party did - some Int, some Dex, and some Str rolls that may as well be called Discern Realities, Defy Danger, and Hack & Slash. 4E D&D explanation. The monster took 2 hits to down. The first one was with an improvised attack power that inflicted vulnerability, based on the request of the player. The second was a crit. The monster was (according to the GM) immune to weapons and yet every attack that inflicted damage was with a weapon so that was obviously just bullshit to encourage different fluff. There were a couple encounter power defender interrupts triggered, and a few people wasted their turns on standard action aid checks that, succeed or fail, had no bearing on the results of the fight (seriously, aid checks are a bad design idea). I was going to quip about how a 2 round fight got stretched out, but the rate of that play by post was absolutely blistering with the entire sequence of events resolving within a day. Instead of a physical game taking, well, 15 minutes with people at my speed of play or about 30 with most other people I've played with. Oh, you're probably interested in some of the non contributing rolls more specifically. Paladin guy failed a house-ruled tumble check and provoked a nasty attack with like half a dozen riders on it. There were a bunch of standard action skill checks. Basically it read like a lovely DM railroad to me. No lie or falsity in this next sentence. Good on DungeonWorld for letting inept adventurer fluff that would make a terrible D&D session be a fun session.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 05:03
|
|
|
drrockso20 posted:Don't we have a Dungeon World thread this discussion should be taking place in? Yeah, I don't think I've seen a single cat this whole page.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 05:04
|
|
|
I think it's time we found a new system to port to any genre or play experience. The d20 years nearly killed the hobby, *World is cliche. Please look forward to my upcoming Drivethru RPG releases of Golden Torch Stories, a series of gritty verisimilitudinous crawl modules, which are also cute.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 05:10
|
|
|
As with most of Dungeon World's greatest faults, the worst thing about its combat is that it is too similar to D&D the system instead of D&D the nostalgic experience.remusclaw posted:Yeah, I don't think I've seen a single cat this whole page. 
That Old Tree fucked around with this message at 07:26 on Aug 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 05:17
|
|
|
Astus posted:The example I gave earlier of "Fighter kneecaps an assassin, GM does not have the assassin flip out" isn't a thing you need to ask your GM permission for. The fiction says the assassin isn't capable of flipping out, so the assassin does not flip out. The fiction is actually more important than any mechanics in the game, and you can tell just how much the designers stress this by reading the GM section and making a note of how many times they use the word "fiction". Or just by actually reading the GM section, since they aren't exactly subtle about this. Yes, but this requires improv effort on the part of the GM during the session, and this is unfair to ask of a GM because
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 05:34
|
|
|
gnome7 posted:Yes, they are, but DW wasn't designed as a story game, it was designed to be OSR. It just happened to get very popular with the story gaming crowd. This is totally accurate. Towards the end of my Dungeon World game I moved towards using average damage for monsters the way that 13th Age does. It cut down on time and let players plan out a little more (this one is almost dead but doesn't hit very hard, should we take it out or focus on the new one who hits like a truck?). When you work out the health numbers and party of four characters, most monsters shouldn't last more than 2-3 rounds unless there are a whole lot of Defy Danger rolls going on or people are rolling really poorly. Most fights also start to drag after that. Regardless, the game is pretty swingy. fool_of_sound posted:That isn't a DungeonWorld thing specifically, it's common across most of the *world games, and while I agree that it's a decent system for games where every test has story importance, like most of the *world games I've encountered do, it falls apart when you're rolling half a dozen times for every player every combat. You can't have meaningful consequences when each player is rolling 3 partial successes and a failure every combat, times two or three combats a session. This is actually pretty accurate, though. As a GM for Dungeon World, you end up either repeating yourself a lot or pulling your punches sometimes. It's one more thing to keep track of in addition to the usual organization and description that go with every fight. And it's made worse by the fact that the book really isn't great about telling you what a failure looks like for a lot of the Basic Moves. Apocalypse World is much better about describing what that 6- result is going to look like in play. Sometimes you can bank the failure for future badness, but it's easy to forget about it - especially with so many rolls in most combat sequences. I would sometimes do work-arounds by trying to come up with interesting failure/partial success options during my game prep, but it's one of the places that DW is weaker.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 06:10
|
|
|
drrockso20 posted:Don't we have a Dungeon World thread this discussion should be taking place in? It wouldn't be the TG chat thread if we didn't go over why some people don't like Dungeon World every couple of months. Here's what I think it all boils down to: 
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 06:14
|
|
|
So, change of topic: Been watching The Adventures of Brisco County Jr. lately: Any good Wild West RPG's that aren't Deadlands?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 06:18
|
|
|
Simian_Prime posted:So, change of topic: Been watching The Adventures of Brisco County Jr. lately: Any good Wild West RPG's that aren't Deadlands? Law's Out owns a lot, but it's only good for one-shots, and is also gmless. It's kind of like a spaghetti western Fiasco, with a cool, barter based resolution system.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 06:25
|
|
|
Bro I thought I was done being able to be instantly excited about the possibilities for upcoming movies Then I thought about endlessly reading about the casting calls for THE RED WIZARDS OF THAY Oh man I think the best thing they could do would be to go all-in from the start and plan it as though the Forgotten Realms contains the potential to be the medieval equivalent of the Avengers films build/cycle. I mean, I cannot begin to imagine this working, but I also never would have guessed we would ever see the Hobbit somehow turned into 3 super-profitable films. Edit: I really do need to play Apocalypse World at least once to see if I am that Venn diagram overlap
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 06:34
|
|
|
Plague of Hats posted:As with most of Dungeon World's greatest faults, the worst thing about its combat is that it is too similar to D&D the system instead of D&D the nostalgic experience. you broke the tables with cuteness
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 06:36
|
|
|
Bucnasti posted:It wouldn't be the TG chat thread if we didn't go over why some people don't like Dungeon World every couple of months. Middle is missing the "Wears propeller beanies" label.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 06:39
|
|
|
Quarex posted:Edit: I really do need to play Apocalypse World at least once to see if I am that Venn diagram overlap I'm pretty sure the only people in that overlap are Sage and Adam themselves because I've don't think I've ever seen anyone playing Dungeon World as it's written, it's always Wizard High School Hyjinks, Sky-Pirate Adventures or Fantasy Running Man (not that there's anything wrong with those things). Dungeon World gives the impression that it's going to be everything you always wanted DnD to be, but it actually delivers what old school DnD really was. Since that's what they set out to do, I can't say it's a bad game, just that it's not the game that a lot of people really want it to be.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 06:55
|
|
|
Bucnasti posted:I'm pretty sure the only people in that overlap are Sage and Adam themselves because I've don't think I've ever seen anyone playing Dungeon World as it's written, it's always Wizard High School Hyjinks, Sky-Pirate Adventures or Fantasy Running Man (not that there's anything wrong with those things). I've seen it run straight before as I've tried it...for one session. It works out well if you do just a straight dungeon crawl in the old school style, but it does hit hiccups if you use custom playbooks. Not that I'm saying custom playbooks are bad, but they tend to be more for games other than straight Dungeon Crawls so the game changed tone after the first session to match player expectations. Ironically, they didn't like the new stuff as much, but I'd blame that more on myself.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 06:59
|
|
|
I'm looking forward to seeing the Band of Blades and Blades Against the Darkness hacks for Blades in the Dark for use in Dungeon Crawl games. I think its a much better fit for the genre than ApocWorld from which it descended. Also its Cyberpunk hack, because why the gently caress isn't there a good lightweight cyberpunk game? Shadowrun is a god drat clunky mess, nevermind Cyberpunk 2020. [edit] And Eclipse Phase isn't my flavor of cyberpunk.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 07:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 16:15 |
|
|
drrockso20 posted:you broke the tables with cuteness Woops, sorry, I'm phone posting so it wasn't apparent. Fixed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 07:28
|
|