|
Is the Pariah class in the list on the first page complete? It looks really cool but it doesn't seem to have any advanced moves.
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 20:49 |
|
|
I was thinking about making a playbook based on like the quake or doom protagonist, called Timelost Warrior or Slipgate Traveller, where their gear is kind of lost dimensionally and returns to them gradually over time. I figured it'd be like a gadgeteer type class, but more action-based and with some dimensional weirdness based abilities.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
RSIxidor posted:I like the sound of this. Could work for a lot of different video game characters where they get items over time. Could work for Link as well. Yeah I was thinking that maybe instead of having races you could have what sort of world you were originally from, say far future, modern day or parallel fantasy, and that'd determine your item list. Maybe with an advanced move to let you swap one of your items for one from a different list, so link can accidentally get a shotgun.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
Is there a good guide to creating new classes anywhere? I'm finding it difficult structuring and balancing my ideas.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
Babe Magnet posted:There's probably a few but what I do is just take a look at basically every other class fitting the theme you're looking for (also look outside the theme and play around with their ideas too!) and start swiping stuff you like. Play with wording to change how it interacts with fiction, swap some moves around, play with your failure categories, all that. Everything is going to be pretty slap-dash no matter what you do until you really start playtesting the class, but having some data that's already established to work pretty well makes a good leaping point. Awesome, thanks! I'm having trouble deciding on the mechanics of the weapons. Obviously a link style guy is gonna have more swords than guns, which kind of makes me feel they need a whole different balancing mechanic. I was gonna go with daily recharging ammo for the guns, so they'd be powerful but limited, and the concept of ammo respawning after a while goes with the whole FPS theme. I'd probably flavour it like since you're dimensionally displaced, other dimensionally displaced stuff is drawn to you like a lightning rod, and so ammo and stuff just turns up in your possession. But obviously that doesn't really make sense for swords. Outside of final fantasy they don't usually need ammo. While I was looking through stuff, I came with an idea for a horror movie Slasher based playbook. It'd be a melee dude with fear and bad luck based abilities, and a choice between a tankier STR+CON monster slasher, ala Jason, or a STR+CHA more human killer, like Patrick Bateman.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
Xelkelvos posted:Magic energy that recovers That's a good idea, thanks! I wrote this move for the slasher, I'm looking for feedback on it, balance wise. I can't decide if it's too good, or if the -2 penalty is too harsh. quote:Sometimes They Come Back (Again)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2015 03:41
|
|
|
madadric posted:
Thanks for all the great advice on the equipment guy class, I'm about to leave the house atm so I don't have time right now to write up a proper response, but I definitely want to work on some of those ideas with what you suggested. With the slasher move, I agree it needs to be simplified a bit, and I've been working on a few ideas, but I don't know how I feel about making it in some way permanently weaken the character. I looked over a bunch of other classes with similar moves, mostly undead sorts of classes, and they don't tend to weaken the character irreversibly. Since coming back to life for ridiculous reasons is kind of a key slasher trope, I'm erring more on the side of time or resource based inconvenience to bring them back to life, rather than a statistical weakness. Jason's been back like 15 times now, he's been burned, dismembered, exploded, turned into a child again by sewer goo (???) but he always comes back later as tough as he always was. I was thinking of rewriting it with a modifier based on how you were killed (arrows to the chest probably won't slow you down much, but being burned and having your ashes scattered will) and with the fail condition basically being that your friends/people who kill stuff with you/mischievous teens in a haunted house have to perform some kind of ritual to bring you back. I should probably share the rest of the class, there's other balancing factors I've been trying to work into it to make it not just ridiculously overpowered. At the moment it's basically slashers are great at killing, but lovely at not making people run in terror from them all the time. Or if you want to be a more human slasher, you lose out on a lot of the toughness based powers. edit: screw it, here it is in all its WIP glory - The Slasher juggalo baby coffin fucked around with this message at 19:05 on Apr 9, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
KirbyJ posted:A friend of mine has challenged me to run a few fantasy demos, and the first game on the list is Dungeon World. I'm a little nervous because while I have read a few PBTA games, this is the first time one is going to hit the table. From my experience with GMing dungeon world, the main thing is don't be afraid to freestyle it a lot. The system kind of requires it of you. And don't be afraid to ask players for incidental details. The system is very freeform, Encourage your players to not make a roll then decide what they're going to do, that's really annoying. Ask them what they're doing then pick what they're rolling based on that. It's kind of a hard habit for people to break cause usually in like D&D you're rolling a specific move cause everything is its own move. Here you act and then you roll based on the action. If you're GMing in person bring some paper where you can sketch out a basic map in situations that need it. Like everything in this game is pretty abstract but sometimes if you're trying to convey a specific scene, like an obstacle or a room layout, it can be really helpful to have a basic diagram because some stuff is hard to describe properly when you're speaking. Also bear in mind that combat in this system isn't the time sink it is in other games, whereas like a good obstacle can be fodder for a whole session, and the system works in such a way that if you think up good hijinks for people loving up on beating the obstacle, it can be a whole session without being boring and frustrating. When it comes to combat, although there is no formal initiative order, it's a good idea to as GM keep in mind who has been acting in what order so that people don't get left out or hog the spotlight. When one action is complete just think to yourself 'who hasn't acted in a while?'. There's also a lot fewer stats associated with combat, so it's easier to drop in new monsters on the fly, given that all you really need to think of is their damage die and their HP total. Anything like a petrifying gaze you can convey using the existing moves or just narratively, e.g. 'A medusa is trying to turn you into stone, what do you do?' 'Uuuh, I try to quickly cover my eyes' 'Roll defy danger with dexterity to cover your eyes fast enough' then if they fail you turn them into stone etc. Not everything needs to have explicit rules for it, just what sounds reasonable or fun to you and the players. I've GMed games with 3.5, 13th age and dungeon world, and imo dungeon world is the most enjoyable system I've used. I don't need to do a shitload of prep for it as a GM (although a basic framework always helps) and I'm not the sole storyteller in the session. The way stuff like Defy Danger work is that if your player can reasonably argue for how they can use a stat to avoid danger, and you buy that at all, they can do. And that's fun, it's encouraging roleplaying and imagining what a character is doing rather than just looking down your list of skills and seeing whats best. Sometimes not having that rigid framework can be jarring, but I've found it to overall be a blessing. I can decide to run a session and then run a session that very evening without having to do hours of prep. Also, for anyone interested, The Slasher playbook is more-or-less done. What we've tried to do with it is encourage and reward people for playing like slashers, and I'm curious to see how well people feel we did on that.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2015 01:43
|
|
|
Is there a playbook anywhere with a good move to represent grappling/strangling something? I'm writing a little playbook for everyone's favourite bendy weirdo, the Choker, and I want to see how other people have handled similar concepts.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 05:16
|
|
|
I've written up a Redcap playbook if anyone wants to take a look or wants to give me any feedback on it. I'm currently sorting the advanced moves into the 2-5 and 6-10 brackets so if stuff seems out of place its cause I wrote em in a huge list and I'm moving them round.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
Teonis posted:I have not read the 6 - 10 moves, since it is time to go to work, but I love this class. Thanks very much! Someone made some really helpful edits to it with regards to grammar and fitting in better with the dungeon world style of writing moves, I dunno if it was you but thanks a ton to whoever it was.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
I based it off the thief, whose backstabbing has slightly easier narrative requirements with no drawbacks. They also get a +1d6 backstab damage move available at level 2. I mean, I'm not responding with a 'no gently caress you my class is perfect', I might want to make the narrative requirements more specifically worded, and I've also been thinking of making the preferences into combined alignment+race things, and more interesting. edit: now that i'm home and not typing on a phone I can be a bit more detailed. While I was designing the class I looked at primarily the fighter and thief, because I felt like a murderous fey should fall somewhere between the two, lacking the tankiness of the fighter and the wider utility of the thief, but making up for it with slightly more damage and some more interesting, weird moves. Now the fighter, at level 1 deals 1d10 base damage, potentially +2 (or effectively +3 if they pick piercing 2 and +1 damage and are fighting an armoured foe) depending on which signature weapon enhancements they chose, which gives them a minimum of 3 damage and a max of 12. A redcap with the stomping speciality deals d8 +1 +d6 if they make their stompy boots attack, which comes out of a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 15. The redcap's average damage is likely to be higher, but they also start with lower HP and 1 or 2 (depending on fighter item choices) less armour, and dealing that damage has a narrative requirement. At level 2 the redcap can gain an additional +1d6 for stompy boots, whereas the fighter can gain a +1d4 applied to all their attacks, or they can pick an additional enhancement for their weapon and gain piercing or another guaranteed point of damage. Vs the thief, the redcap has the same base damage, base health, base armour and a very similar backstab-style move, so a d8+d6 for lv1 stompy boots/backstab damage, but the redcap gains a +1 bonus to damage that the thief doesn't have. The thief, though, has access to poisons, and potentially 3 free uses per day of a poison that lets them reroll damage against a target and take the higher of the two. They also have tricks of the trade, trap expert and flexible morals, which aren't damage abilities so I'll discount them here. At level 2 the thief can gain an additional +1d6 to backstab when using a precise weapon (and what thief wouldn't?), so the same as the redcap. The difference is that later the thief can upgrade that to dirty fighter, which is a +1d8 on backstabs and a +1d4 on all other attacks. The redcap's melee attacks and boot attacks are segregated in terms of bonuses, the only upgrade to stompy boots after spiky boots I could think of is if the redcap applied Jack in the Box to Stompy boots by leaping out of a really high up cupboard and kicking someone in the face, and at that point I feel they deserve it. Also with the redcap's drawbacks, they're not explicitly as harsh as you've got them down. Redcaps aren't forbidden from entering civilization, it's just that people don't like them. It's up to the GM basically how this is played, but my mental image was like, yeah, in a big city if you enter undisguised the guards are probably going to be called, but in a small hamlet it might wind up being an advantage being able to terrify people with your presence. I've rewritten the cap-dipping part slightly too after reading the way you read it, I'd altered it previously from a system where you gained Blood hold by dipping your cap in stuff, then could spend that hold to do stuff. I cut it because it was just extra guff to manage, but in rewriting it I made the starvation penalty harsher unintentionally by requiring you to kill every day. I've changed it to just require the blood of a warm-blooded creature you've killed to stave off starvation, but only sentient creatures count for the HP bonus tally. If you're smart enough to think of bringing a couple of survival piglets into a dungeon of undead so you can stave off blood-starvation, I think you deserve it. I'm writing this mostly with the intent of showing my working on the class, rather than some sort of grognardy rebuttal that says you're super wrong or something, so I'm definitely very interested in hearing where people differ from me in how they'd work things out, as I'm new to the whole class-designing game and I'm looking for advice. juggalo baby coffin fucked around with this message at 17:40 on Apr 20, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
theroachman posted:No worries, I'm not taking it as a rebuttal. I didn't provide any info on how I would change the class because I was (and am- phoneposting as well. If I get a chance I'll provide more constructive criticism. In any case, I want to mention that bringing a bag of pigs or chickens along to an undead dungeon sounds very annoying to me. I give my players enough credit to not consider thinking of that as 'smart'. It's a cheaty solution to a drawback of the class, a hoop you need to jump through. Plus it carries the risk of starting an arms race between the player and the GM, because the GM doesn't want it to be a permanent solution. ("Oops, they're all sold out of chickens in this town." - "ok, are there any beggars on the street? Preferably children" etc.) I think class drawbacks should serve not just to keep the power in check, but -more importantly- to provide roleplaying opportunities. Look at the Paladin's Quest move for instance. It provides drawbacks (must tell the truth at all times) that give the GM and _all_ the players excellent fuel to use in their in-character conversations. I hear you on that, I can't settle on how I want it to be. The dipping the cap in blood is really the main unchangeable part of the redcap myth, and I want that to be a good roleplaying drive for the character, along with redcaps just liking to kill, but I also don't want to totally gently caress someone over if they're in a campaign featuring not all that many living creatures. I mean, it's kind of an extreme example, and it did end up being very entertaining, but a friend ran a (great) campaign that was totally golem based, and without realising that was the case me and another played made undead characters for it, him a vampire and me a mummy. As a mummy it just wound up that I couldn't really curse people, and beyond that I was strong and tough as gently caress, but the vampire guy was pretty boned. It worked out being really funny cause we were basically just regular guys (in his case an increasingly hungry regular guy) but I imagine that same situation could end up really frustrating for someone. So I want to maintain a mechanic that requires the redcap to dip their cap in blood in a regular basis, in part because it's in the myth but also in part so they're encouraged to behave like a redcap. I don't know if what I have currently is great for that.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
I've taken on board people's suggestions and made a bunch of edits, thanks for the input, the old link should still work but here it is again: Redcap I felt like Whybird's suggestion about the alignments was a great way to tie the idea of redcap advancement being based on wetting their cap without introducing a secondary system, and theroachman's point about not having to force players into playing like a redcap was a good one too. I dunno if the change I made to the cap move made it too good or anything, maybe it needs to be more conditional.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
unwirklich posted:Awesome feedback Thanks very much for all of this, it's highlighted some areas I do really need to rewrite or reconsider. I think I need to make it more plain in writing some of the balancing factors I intended the powers to have. Like the stompy boots and normal melee are meant to be seperate things, so piggy-back attack would not gain any of the stompy boots stuff, so at maximum it's 8+4+1 damage (excluding any item bonuses), which against the dragon in the example would wind up being 8 damage, as a dragon has 5 armour. Still half a dragon's health, so I might either nudge the dice roll requirement up or change it to something like 'roll your damage twice and take the best result'. With spiky boots, again I'm just going off the thief's progression in backstab damage from the core book. I kind of feel that if a guy wearing spiky iron boots gets a good stomp at your head you're probably going to die, unless you're made of sterner stuff than mortal men. I do kind of want to add some language in there to say it has to be actually a decent height if you're jumping onto someone, rather than just a leaping kick. Jack-in-the-Box was intended to give a less-boot-focused redcap a decent damage boost, but yeah I think it works out as too much in concert with stompy boots. I'd intended, again, the balancing factor to be the fact there probably aren't really any tall cupboards to spring out of in a dragon's lair. I might change it to a bonus to the attack roll or again a roll twice and take the better damage thing. A Good Shove is a move I've reworked a few times now, and I'm still not entirely happy with it. I wanted something that'd facilitate you opening people up to Stompy Boots, that'd build into the, IMO hilarious, situation of stabbing a dragon in the ankles till it falls over, then jumping up and down on its head. Initially it was basically just a 'roll str to push someone over' move, but that was basically just a rewrite of defy danger STR. I don't really know what to do with it. Wherever You (Don't) Want Me is mostly balanced by the fact the GM is going to be the one to decide where the enemy really doesn't want you. I mean usually it'd be in a position to give you an advantage against them, but it could as equally be 'in the dragon's treasure hoard' or 'the queen's bedchamber'. What I really wanted with this class was to have great killing power tempered with the unpredictability of fey magic. Corpse Craftsmanship I agree is a little weak at the moment. I intended more for it to add some sort of supernatural strength to the stuff you make, like normally bones wouldn't make very good climbing pitons, but you bridge the gap between fantasy and reality with your innate magic. Maybe I should add a bonus to rolls made using your gruesome adventuring kit? Shared Misfortune is pretty much intended to be balanced by how much it's going to piss off your teammates. Like maybe the self-sacrificing paladin won't be too mad if you switch places with him after loving up a defy danger to avoid being punched in the face, but the wizard probably wouldn't feel the same. A lot of parties seem pretty cosmopolitan in who they include as friends, so I felt like it'd be nice to remind people now and then why Everyone Hates Redcaps. Misery loves Company is, yeah, a bit much as it stands. I might change it to 'when you fail after rolling doubles' or add something about you having to explain how it makes any drat sense for it to work. Or both. Like if you gently caress up and drop your weapon I could see malign fate inflicting the same thing on an enemy, but your example, yeah, I can't think of much that makes sense there. Piercing Laughter yeah, I left the heading but never though up a move for it. I've rewritten some stuff and added other stuff you suggested, and yeah 'I've Got Three Knives' is a discworld quote haha. Whybird posted:How about : This move is pretty sweet, I'm thinking of maybe adding it as an advanced move rather than a starting move? Edit: Everyone's had really helpful stuff to say about the Redcap which I'm really grateful for, so I'm wondering if any of you'd be interested in passing an eye over my earlier playbook, The Slasher. It's effectively the barbarian/fighter to the redcap's rogue, inspired by all my favourite slasher movies and tropes. I'm also working on another of my favourite movie archetypes, the alien invader. At the moment there's not enough content for it to be worth sharing, but it's hopefully gonna include aspects of mars attacks and the pod people, but leave some room for it to be used as not just the typical b-movie alien, but also cover extraplanar fantasy goobers. juggalo baby coffin fucked around with this message at 17:42 on Apr 22, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2015 17:34
|
|
|
Ok so I've tried to fix up the Redcap a bit more, I'm still working on alternatives for the preferences, but inspiration hasn't struck yet. The Redcap.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
I'm working on a new playbook that's probably my most complicated so far, it's a customizable class based on all the sorts of special/weird miniboss zombies you see in games and fiction. The advanced moves are nowhere near complete yet, but I was wondering what people thought of the basic archetype moves: ELITE ZOMBIE SQUAD Originally they were all going to be seperate playbooks, but it was proving difficult to make enough meaningful content for each to justify them all being separate.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2015 00:30
|
|
|
Something Else posted:I don't have any notes on this, but it seems cool. You know what would be cooler? A whole Left 4 Dead-inspired Zombie World hack. Just add The Witch and The Choker and you've pretty much got the playbooks already. Talk about taking the murderhobo concept to its logical conclusion! Yeah my original conception was kind of an alternative party set, but I couldn't really think of what the witch or the smoker would bring to the table as full classes of their own.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2015 01:04
|
|
|
RSIxidor posted:Witches, I don't know. There's a reason they aren't playable in game, either. Maybe some kind of angsty zombie concept could work. I gave the psycho the option for a long tongue type thing as its infection origin move a while back. Basically a magic rope type thing that it can control and use to grab stuff. My problem with any like extra ranged moves would probably just seem like/actually be a reskinned spew. The psycho is already the kind of rogue equivalent and I figured the smoker is an ambush predator like a rogue. Although giving the psycho a smoke advanced move is a great idea, I wasn't feeling all that inspired with the psycho advanced moves but I think the smoke is a great avenue to go down, thanks! Something Else posted:For the witch, I think treating it like the spellcasting class is the way to go. Low damage dice, fairly restrictive spellcasting conditions/effects (to maintain the tone), and maybe a mechanic where you're the brains in the darkness but go berserk in light. You've got a sort of banshee scream or possibly some sort of intimidation factor to work with. I actually really like that idea. Spellcaster in the shadows then berserker in the light. Maybe you swap your str and int scores when exposed to light? Could work as a good setup for covering the psychic zombies you see pop up every now and then too. edit: I've made an alternative version of the playbooks that's at the bottom of the google doc where they're all seperate playbooks. It felt like having 4 archetypes would bloat an already bloated playbook too much so I split em out. At the moment they all have all the non-archetype advanced moves, but I might change that. juggalo baby coffin fucked around with this message at 02:29 on Apr 29, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
Well, since the Redcap is basically wrapped up, and I need to do some real restructuring work on the Elite Zombies (need a better name) set of playbooks that I'm too lazy to do at the moment, I thought up this playbook while out on a walk yesterday: The Infernal Businessman It's a fairly comedy-themed playbook, it's based on the setting for a campaign I've been running on and off, The Elemental Plane of Business (It's hell rebranded as a massive beaurocracy). This playbook is for one of the plane's inhabitants, albeit one operating outside of its home plane.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
echopapa posted:Everything on this guy is CHA-based. He’s a minmaxer’s dream. Maybe throw in something INT-based for creating useless subcommittees to delay your opponent. Yeah I need to swap some stuff to INT or WIS, but minmaxing seems less of a problem in dungeonworld cause the stats cap out at 18. though it does mean you gotta be careful with +1 bonuses that can stack.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
Similarities are pretty much unavoidable, its just whether or not your playbook is just basically a better version overall than another. Like, you can deal more damage than the thief, but it should probably come at the cost of the thief's utility. edit: Unrelated but related, my Redcap Playbook is now up for sale on DTRPG! The google doc version is complete and will remain free for goons, but the DTRPG version has a nice character sheet and slightly improved wording! juggalo baby coffin fucked around with this message at 16:58 on May 15, 2015 |
|
#
¿
May 15, 2015 15:05
|
|
|
Hooray, our second playbook is out: The Slasher This one's had a lot of balancing work done to it since the google doc version I posted here a while back.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:Is that too many? i dont think its too bad unless its the playbook itself that's 13 pages. it sounds like you got a bunch of other stuff in there so i don't think its a problem, but overall you wanna keep the playbook down to a couple of pages. whenever ive written them its been hard to prune the number of moves to fit in the space.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2019 01:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 20:49 |
|
|
Lurdiak posted:Only 2 pages of the playbook are the class itself, and it's in character sheet format. The rest is copyright information, items, the compendium class, flavor, artwork, and some GMing advice relating to some of the class's mechanics. sounds like you're all good then. ive seen some playbooks where they go really hog wild and the thing is like 5 pages long with class abilities or complicated mechanics.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2019 09:38
|
|