|
I really like the idea behind Overlord on the whole, and 'cuts' is an excellent term to use that really helps put me in the mindset of how GM moves are expected to be used in a cinematic style. It doesn't really change anything about moves, but just framing it that way immediately gives me a ton of ideas where I always had trouble following how soft and hard moves are supposed to hit when I did stuff in Dungeon World. I'm still trying to work out how I like the rest of the rules, but the GM stuff immediately makes me more interested in running a game since I get to do all the fun dumb stuff I like to do in making my own character while actually getting a framework to use it in, as opposed to that being a hard to maneuver faux pas in GMing. That alone has me pretty interested in seeing more of this.
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2015 13:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 00:19 |
|
|
I'm liking the major overhauls, especially to the Squire, and I'm glad to see you're willing to make such large steps to change the book up in the spots it needs it!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
Blind Azathoth posted:I'm happy with the Remnant and the Constructed doing well, but the Dragon being first place and the Hatchling being last makes no drat sense to me. Who would want to play a boring old dragon when you could play the sea elf's baby kraken friend? Who?! Easy. Dragon means a whole lot more to me than just boring jerk sitting on a pile of stuff. When it comes to a system like this where I need to slot my ideas into a set frame, I like having something familiar enough to tinker with. Close to a blank slate, but specific enough in cool ways to give me stuff to play with. I totally want to play a lady cursed with skin of living armor with a heart of molten steel, that's a Dragon to me, and I have even more ideas than that. Fellowship's already good at telling you (and literally showing you with the diversity in the art) to make things whatever you want them to be, so I don't see people being shoehorned into playing 'boring old dragon' unless they wanted to do that anyways. Some concepts just resonated with me better than others, but it's kind of lame to play down what other people are excited about and I hope the discussion around the vote doesn't turn into that. I will say though, the Remnant is flavor concept I'm okay with, but when I read how the moves worked I was pretty quickly turned off by it. The others I didn't like just didn't click with me from a flavor perspective, but I'm hoping the Remnant sees some shifting from its core concept of abolishing an entire interesting rule. I like hope and despair, so I'd rather not see an entire playbook be based around ignoring a nice mechanic like it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2015 12:33
|
|
|
My read is that the stuff in the Overlord's Toolbox is explicitly there to give more concise rules for you to work with when using those as opposing NPCs and that info is irrelevant to the fellowship unless those moves are being used against them. When it comes to the companions the fellowship is actually using, they're just words/phrases attached to tickboxes that you interpret as you will and spend to extend your potential in the fiction. There's basically no way any of them are 'passive' because that would skirt around the goal of spending limited resources. If your pegasus has spent its 'Flight' tickbox, it's not going to be useful in the fiction until you can recover that. It still has wings and is probably still alive, depending on what's going on in your game, but it's tired or moody or injured, whatever makes sense. Maybe it's a mechanical horse that ran out of fuel, maybe it's enchanted and the magic forming its wings is weakened. It's not there to give your character a permanent 'can fly' tag, it's there to do something cool in a dramatic moment when the fellowship deems it necessary. PBTA abstracts the MC/GM's stuff and they never roll dice, so you can assume anything that would call a stat wouldn't work on an NPC, and anything that elicits a roll would never be performed by the GM. Fellowship skirts this a little by giving the Overlord sorta stats, but that's specific to the Overlord figure and they still don't map to what the players use anyways. Just like your pile of coins or address book full of names, companions are an expendable resource that let you do more cool things. It might be harder to visualize a person you aren't consuming/using as something you spend, but as long as you still have bonds with them they're still around. sentrygun fucked around with this message at 16:16 on Oct 18, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
paradoxGentleman posted:Speaking of Bonds, when I create a Bond with an NPC, do I have to state in what way he is useful, like a Winged, or a description of your relationship with them, like with PCs? There are several bonds with inanimate objects, and if you break it down to the rules the thing that really matters is numbers of bonds more so than the words you wrote about it, so the answer is probably 'whatever you want'. If it makes sense to you and you don't have a weird move preventing you from forming that bond like the Harbinger, I pretty well doubt anybody's going to gripe over how your magic broom is a five-time underground broom racing champion.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2015 16:37
|
|
|
The link you sent out for the new rulebook doesn't work as written, I had to clip out a couple %20's and patch the url up to get it to work.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2016 03:42
|
|
|
It's the most minor nitpick ever and I'm really liking a lot of what I'm seeing, but this is kind of killing me, komodo dragons are venomous, bites can't be poisonous. Dragon's looking pretty rad though!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 00:19 |
|
|
Yeah, komodos are real hosed up. Which makes them an excellent pet, of course.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2016 07:06
|
|