poor life choice posted:

Please, my new-to-tabletop gaming group is struggling with alignment and bonds and this looks a little more instructive.

Subjunctive posted:

I'd love to hear more.

Comrade Gorbash posted:

What do you all do for 6- on Spout Lore?

I generally don't like giving false information, because with the shared narrative creation aspect it feels like it betrays some of the central tenets of PbtA. In some circumstances I'm okay with it - cases where it's not me providing bad information, but where bad information exists in the world itself. But when speaking as the GM I prefer always to say true things.

As a result I tend to fall back on reveal an unwelcome truth or show signs of an approaching threat based on the subject at hand. At other times, I find it better to provide incomplete or confusing information - a half-remembered prophecy or excerpt from something they read, maybe. They know something about the place they're going but it's an either/or piece of information that could lead them astray (e.g. there's a red gem and a green gem and one let's you in and one activates the defenses and I don't remember which is which).

I'm always looking for other ways to do it though.

Comrade Gorbash posted:

The copy I have is solid. Pretty much the standard oversized paperback style a lot of indie rpgs use.

Harrow posted:

I know this is from months ago, but I'm just catching up on the thread.

Holy drat I like this idea a lot. Back when I ran DW regularly I always had trouble getting my players to really interact with the bonds system beyond the initial setup, but something like flags would almost certainly work. That's a cool as hell idea.

RedMagus posted:

Remember with flags that the XP comes only once in the session, not each time. Helps break people of that "hit the bell for XP" instinct that seems to come to the table

Comrade Gorbash posted:

I think that bonds as basically a descriptor of history and relationship between characters makes sense. It helps keep prevent the incongruity of new groups being a bunch of strangers with nothing in common. At the same time, the RAW for how to use bonds in play are really clumsy and ham-handed.

Personally I think flags are an amazing idea, but rather than throw out bonds, use them differently. Every PC should have a bond with every other PC, and at end of session have them read them again and decide if what's written down is still the best encapsulation of their relationship. If it's not, if something has changed, mark XP and write a new one.

Comrade Gorbash posted:

Hit me up later on this, I have some ideas.

RedMagus posted:

Honestly, I'd do Dungeon World as is and change 2 things:
1) When everyone gets there, explain that you want to go for a slapstick barely competent Red Dwarf style campaign
2) Encourage people to not put their +2 in their primary stat

With DW, you get a lot of power in the 7-9 move, and that power lets you setup those slapstick "well we put the fire out. by releasing the water elemental that's tearing up the town" moments.

Especially if you're running it this way, give a slice of narrative control to the player for those moments. Setup the scene and go "ok, what's the dumbest yet best way your character would do X, but is going to cause Y to happen thanks to your partial hit/full miss" and let them help you setup the comedy.

Harrow posted:

Depending on what you're looking for, you could[ give Dungeon Bastards a try. It's not strictly PbtA, nor is it suited for anything longer than a one-shot, but it is tailor-made for "incompetent, poorly-behaved adventurers blunder their way to success" adventures.

gnome7 posted:

Infinite Oregano posted:

I suppose this is a question that likely applies to all PbtA games, but regardless: If you're playing in real time (whether it's by discord or face-to-face or whatever), how do you keep in your mind the possibilities of GM Moves, or the complications that stem from a 7-9 Defy Danger roll (or hypothetically the other moves but I feel that Defy Danger's broadness leaves it more open to possibilities but also meaning it can be harder to come up with a satisfactory result on the spot)? Do you make any preparations as such?

Also on a different note but still somewhat DW-related: How do you do dungeons in your games? How much do you leave to the players and how much prompting do you give them regarding the dungeoneering experience and the dungeon's layout/etc. etc.?

Shanty posted:

Comrade Gorbash posted:

I'm kind of feeling a bigger effort post about how to understand the the mechanics of Dungeon World and other PbtAs and how a lot of them are "hidden" mechanics, less because the game doesn't identify them and more due to expectations created by other TTRPGs. Would people find that useful?

Infinite Oregano posted:

So what's the consensus here about the Follower rules in Perilous Wilds (compared to the core hireling rules)?

Or furthermore the entirety of Perilous Wilds and descendent supplements?

Devorum posted:

Is there a product I can download or buy that has Drives for the core classes to replace alignments?

I checked the OP, but didn't see anything.

Ilor posted:

Comrade Gorbash posted:

UrbanLabyrinth posted:

That's kinda how it works. When you volley, one of the choices is to not spend ammo, so you can keep firing until you have to pick that option 3 times.

MTV Crib Death posted:

Okay so I've been spending some time thinking about the smash-up between Bard and Thief that better fits into Dungeon Planet. I really like the Dungeon Planet book, but it feels half done when it comes to classes. The new classes are great, but the idea that the run-of-the-mill bard, thief, and wizard fit into the setting without any friction doesn't seem right to me. That might be my own sci-fi biases showing though.

In any case, I present The Pilot v1.0. It needs more advanced moves but I think the base is a solid mash up that combines to create a Han Solo/Jack Burton/Alex Rogan type character for spacey adventures. Tear it apart, please. I'll be play-testing it this weekend and can make changes right up to the hour before we sit down to play.

quote:

They must answer it truthfully, then you may ask you a question from the list

Comrade Gorbash posted:

flying monkey minions of the Wicked Lich of the West

Waffles Inc. posted:

So I've decided to take the plunge and ask some tabletop friends if they'd like to play Dungeon World, since hearing about it popping up in other threads has turned my head. After reading the rules and absorbing stuff like the above I am absolutely fuckin jazzed about giving it a go.

However, what I find utterly intimidating is how a session might...flow. Like, how much prep do I have to do as a DM? My understanding of reading stuff like the 'Tight One-Shot' doc and the rulebook is that the overall campaign front has portents and whatnot, and those would then trickle into the adventure front(s).

So compared to D&D, creating a campaign front is the equivalent of creating the big bad so to speak, yeah? From there, the adventure fronts are going to be like, the mcguffin swamp with the thing the big bad wants, or the big bad's childhood home or the big bad's lieutenant's castle, yeah?

How do I do all of that while still weaving in the "draw maps but leave blanks"?

I guess to put it a different way, the puzzle piece I'm missing is how to run the campaign from a meta level, does that make sense? After an encounter am I meant to do things like, "Who knows a town nearby to resupply at?", things like that? So that I might have several pre-gen steads that serve my fronts, but the players fill in the gaps?

Waffles Inc. posted:

Ah thanks so much for these! I loving LOVE the Sky Chain one.

Also thanks so much Kaffo for the Perilous Wilds suggestion, I snagged that and I'll definitely be doing the map building in session zero, and I think I'm gonna have our "starting location" be the Sky Chain.

So once you get all of that going, everyone would have their reasons for being there and questions answered and whatnot and then you just...go? And as things develop, then you as the DM begin to weave with the cloth the party gives you as they reveal and explore and create?

Sorry to keep hammering on this, it's just that something in my mind hasn't yet clicked in the transition from D&D thinking. I'm just afraid that when we actually start, everything is just gonna be stuck in neutral; i'm intimidated about how I can drive the action without a narrative. In my D&D DMing life, I've always, either through a module or my own writing, had a way to get the party out of neutral because there were always machinations behind the scenes, and with Dungeon World it feels like I don't have that safety net.

Waffles Inc. posted:

aha! That did the trick I think: the GM moves are the driver

It's always easy to imagine things sputtering when I'm sitting here by myself without the energy of a session haha

Comrade Gorbash posted:

Words of Wisdom

malkav11 posted:

I feel like Dungeon World is especially prone to this because it takes so many cues from D&D that the same reflexes get triggered. But it's clearly a broad spectrum issue. Almost none of the PBTA actual plays I've listened to have managed to steer away from "I feel like you should roll dice here so what's the closest move?". Even Austin Walker, who's generally one of the best PBTA GMs I've listened to, has fallen into that particular trap...

Overemotional Robot posted:

In my Star Wars World game I deal with absences by writing love letters to the players for when they come back.

Waffles Inc. posted:

Since Bonds and Alignments are such a huge part of XP and leveling up, do you find that it works as a carrot or a stick to get people out of a roleplay rut and into being an active participant?

What I mean is that, when the session end comes and someone realizes they didn't resolve any bonds or do their alignment thing and everyone else did, do you find that it's a wakeup call or just a feelsbad?

For what it's worth, I'm good friends with all of my players and have zero qualms having them be different levels if someone isn't "pulling their weight" in an RP sense

kaffo posted:

Ok ladies, here we go.

A quick description so you don't need to go to the other web page:

Flags are a replacement for bonds (which really suck if you ask me). The idea is you come up with two adjectives for your character, and an instruction tied to each adjective telling other players how to use that flag to get them XP.
For example, if my character had the Curious flag with the instruction "convince me to try something I probably shouldn’t." then another PC would be trying to convince you to do something daft to get them XP. This might be in a dungeon, where there's an obviously trapped chest, and the other PC starts saying "on you go, come on, you are dying to find out!". Then they get XP.
They encourage play you normally wouldn't see. I think bonds have this problem where they are hyper specific and only between two PCs. So you get these boring, forced conversations where everyone else has to sit on the phones and not listen until you "resolve" it. Because come on... When do those things ever resolve?
Flags don't resolve, they are part of your character. So they are easier to remember too as the game goes on. (Although they can change if you feel you've had some CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT)
Futhermore, a flag is an invitation to everyone, so anyone can get stuck in. This may lead to that Curious character getting shafted like 5 times in a session, but it will always be fun and in the fiction.

In my game I've already seen some really fun play off these which we never got with bonds. Our cleric is a nut case dwarf who's entire religion is revolves fearing "The Depths". He chose a flag which was something like "Use my religion to make me do something I don't want to", so the wizard now gets under his character's skin with stuff like "better not go down that alleyway, THE DEPTHS COULD BE DOWN THERE!" all the while laughing while the cleric runs away like a little girl... Then the wizard gets XP!

Mechanics wise it changes the Aid move so it's a little more generic, no longer has it got to do with some mysterious bond you apparently have that somehow helps you pull your mate out of a deep hole.

Drives are basically flags, but for you personally. They really aren't too far flug from alignments, but they come with a couple of unique rules which make a huge difference.
First they get rid of alignments, which I personally have always disliked. While I entirely agree a character can probably be classed under one of the 9 alignments... I hate when it becomes the go to for what they do. "Oh I'm good so I guess I'd save this guy? Even though he's actually a murdered and he killed my best friend... But I'm good so ok!". But it still keeps the goal, albeit the goals are now more due to personality traits than just being outright good or evil.
Secondly they are built specificially to cause a decision. None of these are "stab a dude because you are a fighter with a sword and you'll do it anyway", no. These are more like "You are a loud barbarian who can't keep his mouth shut, get an XP when you spoil a social event with your brutish ways". So you get this choice: Do I blurt out and get the XP for it? Or do I keep my mouth shut and hope everything goes well? Either way something will happen and it'll be interesting.

Drives in my game have so far happened mostly due to my players liking to play their characters right. Our fighter chose Proud: Put someone in their place (or grave) for disrespecting you. An NPC tried to tell him he was being an idiot for attempting to open an obviously magically locked chest, then the figher broke his jaw. So he got his XP! But he was going to punch the NPC anyway, even though it caused the guy to avoid saving the fighter in a later fight.

So yeah, I'm a big fan of both.
My personal advice would be:

• Do bonds at character creation, but only use them for story/getting the group together. Write down flags on your sheet for play
  
• For new players keep alignments. Drives require you to do some thinking about what your character is like. As much as I hate alignments, I think they help newbies make decisions
  
• For vets/players who just get into character, swap out for a drive. You can do it mid game easily and they are more fun
  

If you have any questions, I'll happily answer

edit: Oh and poor life choice, while I say alignments might be easier for new players, it might not always be the case. But I can easily see you getting the old "oh, but I don't know what my character is like or what they want!". Which is where "I'm an evil wizard" makes things much simpler. However flags are easy, you just scroll down the list and pick 2 if you are lost, then build a character around them!

Waffles Inc. posted:

I could definitely see myself swapping out mechanics and stuff after we're all more comfortable with the RAW, but I'm super hesitant to houserule things from the get go. I appreciate it though! I've definitely dropped that post into a notes doc

Like, they're all coming from D&D, so there being an actual mechanic for how characters interact is going to be new, even before I start modifying stuff, so I'm interested to see how it all works out

Waffles Inc. posted:

Do you have a list of Flags the way that that above doc has Drives? After looking at 'em, I think you're right that Drives are easy to drop in, since they're also just picking from a list

Waffles Inc. posted:

Haha yeah you absolutely nailed it--I'm thinking it's going to be a big enough mind-gently caress of a Session Zero as it is, without having to ask them all to come up with flags off the top of their heads

Thanks for this!

Waffles Inc. posted:

Thinking back on it, it probably wasn't a good Discern Realities moment, though I dunno. The situation was the party were on a pirate sky ship being forced to walk a long plank that anchored them to a floating island, but on the other side of the plank were the inhabitants of the island shooting at them. This character wanted to peek up and see what was going on, and the language she used for what she was doing seemed to trigger Discern Realities.

She rolled a 6, so I said like, "as you peaked up you see a bit too late that an arrow is headed directly at you, so you're unable to get a clean look at the action, what do you do?" (Put them in a spot)

Where I feel I "failed" is that what the player was wanting to do is understand about who or why was shooting, I should have sensed the"real" reason she wanted to do it and had the failure still be illustrative towards that end in a way that still made the failure meaningful. So like, the failure could have meant she spotted reinforcements, or they're rolling out a ballista! or something

Comrade Gorbash posted:

Comrade Gorbash posted:

For a static set up, like for podcasting and so forth, then I'd recommend XLR mics over USB every time. You'll get as good quality for cheaper, or better for the same or slightly more, and you have more control and the ability to upgrade over time. If you get a USB mic, the Blue Yeti is pretty much your top-out, and you can't use most of the accessories if you switch streams. That's one of the big disadvantages of the Blue products and other USB mics - most of them don't fit the standard booms and shock mounts and the Blue specific ones are unreasonably expensive.

Start with getting a Behringer Xenyx 302USB - or the equivalent larger versions if you need more input/outputs. The 302USB runs about $50. There are better mixers out there, but the Behringers are as good at a lower price point, especially since you're still putting it through a USB input in the end. They just have fewer features and don't have the build quality of the higher end stuff.

You do want to get a shock mount, pop-filter, and stand, but honestly even the cheap $25~ combo options for this are more than good enough. I had the Neweer NW-35 (which comes with a cable and shock mount) and it was perfectly acceptable. My only caution on it - and similar ones where you're tightening thumb-screws to keep it in position - is that they will wear out if you're constantly re-positioning them. I had to replace mine and went a little berserk and got a Rode PSA1, which is fantastic but is definitely overkill for anyone starting out. A desk stand is also cheap, coupled with the $13~ pop filter/shock mount combo deals. This part is cheap enough that there's no reason not to grab them. You will also need an XLR cable, most mics don't come with one but a lot of stands and booms will. Even if you have to buy it totally separately it will only run you about $7 for a 10ft cable, which should be good enough for home set ups.

For mics, I have a MXL 770 mic, which I like a lot but is about $75, though it routinely goes on sale on Amazon for closer to $55. It also comes with a shock mount. Something like the Behringer XM8500 which is no-poo poo $20 will work for a starter if you're need to keep costs down, as will the Shure SM48-LC or PGA48-LC for a bit more. This is also where you can really scale up over time - mics run the gamut from the cheap options I mention here to multi-hundred dollar examples, and the improvement across the price range is real. But for a single person, over an internet connection, sitting in front of the mic in a probably fairly quiet room, you don't need the high end stuff to sound good. The jump from $20-30 to the $70 and then to the $100-120 range all are improvements, yes. But even the cheapest set up will already sound better than all but the best headsets and USB mics (which will be way more expensive). And it gives you room to grow over time, if you find a need to.

If you really only have $50 to spend, the Blue Snowball is fine, but I would replace it outright rather than try to accessorize it beyond a pop-filter. The shock mount costs as much as the mic and it doesn't play nice with many stands or booms. A Blue Yeti will run you $130 just for the mic, and it again does not play well with standard shock mounts, though the ones for it run more in the $25 range. Still, you're realistically $150 in, plus another $15 to $20 for pop-filter and a cheap boom, and more like you're in at $200, and if you want to upgrade you still will have to go back and buy a mixer and normal shock mount to go along with an XLR mic.

In contrast, the cheap XLR route, you're in for about $93 ($24 for boom, pop-filter, shock mount, and cable, $49 for mixer, $20 for mic). Go with a better mic and you'll run between $125-$150 - the lower end cheaper than the Blue Yeti all by itself, the upper end not far above and well cheaper than an accessorized Blue Yeti. And if you want to upgrade, you only have to pay for the new mic - you can keep using the same shock-mount, the mixer, cable, etc.

If you're looking for something portable, there's a couple of good headsets out there, I'll go dig out the recommendations I have for that if people want.

Comrade Gorbash posted:

Working on a Dungeon World hack/2nd edition project and am looking for your best suggestions/ideas.

I've already picked out a few mission statements/concepts as guides.

• The one D&Dism Dungeon World got rid of that it should have kept is the ability to freely mix and match race/people/origin and class. So bring that option back.
  
• Basic stats should be more about what a character is doing or how they're doing it, and not their innate qualities.
  
• HP and weapon damage need to be revamped entirely.
  
• Everyone needs to be good at combat and good at exploring in some fashion.
  
• The party/adventuring company should be something that matters. This includes coming up with a better way to reflect relationships and history.

Here's some of the ways I'm trying to meet those goals.
Basic Stats

• Basic stats are based around the idea of how something is accomplished. They still reflect D&D stats to some degree but are less about the character's innate capabilities and more about how they apply them.
  
• Currently looking at Might (uses raw power and direct force), Finesse (grace and speed), Expertise (training and practiced skill), Insight (learned knowledge and close observation). Trying to determine one or two more stats, leaning towards something like Tenacity (perseverance and endurance) and then maybe Appeal (personal allure and persuasion).

Characters/Playbooks

• Playbooks consist of three elements you select to create a unique character. Origin, Background, and Class you select.
  
• Origin and Background are much smaller than playbook. They provide a top line benefit like Race/Alignment (and equivalents) in Dungeon World, a way to mark XP, and potentially one or two advances you can take along the way.
  
• Origin includes race/people but things like "raised by wolves" and so forth. It has to be what you are/where you come from. Broadly, it represents the shared traits and/or experiences of a group you're part of, but not your individual experiences and lifepath.
  
• Background lets you flesh out some character concepts that don't necessarily need to have a specific class dedicated to them, like a wizard who was trained by the military. This represents more the specific experience of the character.

Moves/Mechanics

• Every class gets a defined stat for their attacks in combat, it's set as a high modifier. That stat also gets a tag reflecting a more descriptive explanation of their approach (like arcane for wizards or martial for fighters). The stat in question and the descriptor offer will adjust some of the options they have when they make the attack move(s?).
  
• Additional moves based around exploration, and massively overhaul Defy Danger in particular.

I'm also considering something more radical, where every class gets its a Combat and an Explore stat at +1 each, and those have descriptive names. So a Wizard might have Arcane and Lore, and when they get to add that +1 to combat moves when the specific action involves magic somehow, and +1 to explore moves when it involves tapping into some piece of obscure information they've learned. I'm not totally happy with it as described, but I feel like there may be something there conceptually.

Anyways, suggestions and feedback are welcome.

Pollyanna posted:

I would kill for a Dungeon World 2e, assuming it’s done right.

Rotten Red Rod posted:

I was using the tactical combat in terms of comparing 4e to 5e, and why I prefer 4e - because it gives the players more choice other "I guess I just attack again because I'm not a wizard". And that's an aspect Dungeon World shares with 4e that I like - more player choice (although for opposite reasons). I'm aware it's not going to be super tactical, but at least trying to teach and play the game won't feel like another full-time job, so I can accept that.
I want a game that's easy to teach to new players, cheap to buy, and doesn't require a huge investment of time for me to craft the campaign I want. I like tactical combat, but I can accept the trade-off. And I can still set up fun battles where the players have to think creatively and use the environment to their advantage to take out unconventional foes!