|
Benagain posted:Yo anyone got a recommendation for a quick to play sword and sorcery kinda game? I'm probably gonna run a one shot of 13th age or dungeon world tomorrow and I was wondering if there's another game out there that might be more suited for the genre with an equivalent ease of play. Dungeon World seems pretty great for S&S to me. What would you be looking for in an S&S game that DW doesn't fit? The Carouse move is straight out of Fafhrd & the Grey Mouser, for example.
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 02:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 10:46 |
|
|
LogicNinja posted:What would you be looking for in an S&S game that DW doesn't fit? One that's even mildly interesting in any way 
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 02:43
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:One that's even mildly interesting in any way I'm running my first game of DW (albeit via play-by-post) and it's plenty interesting. The GM move guidelines have pushed me to do things that I wouldn't have otherwise, and it's worked out pretty great.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 03:05
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:One that's even mildly interesting in any way
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 03:15
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 03:18
|
|
|
LogicNinja posted:I'm running my first game of DW (albeit via play-by-post) and it's plenty interesting. The GM move guidelines have pushed me to do things that I wouldn't have otherwise, and it's worked out pretty great. I mean I guess if you've never played another PbtA game at all it might be interesting. It's pretty amateurish and boring by the standards of the actually good ones though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 03:20
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:I mean I guess if you've never played another PbtA game at all it might be interesting. It's pretty amateurish and boring by the standards of the actually good ones though. If there's another D&D-fantasy-style PbtA game, I'm open to it. Other PbtA games being better more tightly put together to emphasize themes is a thing, but it also limits what you can run with them. Sometimes that's not what you need. Not every game can (or needs to be) Night Witches or whatever. I wanted to run cool, atmospheric adventures in the Astral Sea, and DW's working out just fine for that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 03:30
|
|
|
inverse world seems like it would be great to stick in there
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 05:28
|
|
|
Is the Thing board game any good?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 05:34
|
|
|
Dungeon World is fine, it's just not great. While it's two biggest problems are fairly obvious and would've been easily fixed in dev, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that on the whole it's perfectly fun to play. Just like 13th Age and so many other games we like.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 05:52
|
|
|
What are the two biggest problems? Genuine curiosity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 06:31
|
|
|
Benagain posted:What are the two biggest problems? Genuine curiosity. • The damage system. It's a weird swingy mess that is perhaps the most out-of-place "ripped straight out of D&D and shoved into Apocalypse World" of all the unnecessary or lazy D&Disms that plague the game. Like other such glaring examples (Ability scores, the way wizard spells work), it seems like it was included specifically because it was in D&D and for no other reason. Now, it didn't need to use Apocalypse World's combat/damage system, in fact that probably would've been bad when trying to make a game "give you that D&D feel without having to play D&D." But they could've done so much better, even if they still wanted to keep all the wonky dice types "because D&D." • The fighter is really boring. Other classes have problems, but after you make up your signature weapon you're mostly just accumulating pretty uninteresting +numbers. Fiction-first gaming like *World games should put a lot more emphasis on meaningfully changing the narrative landscape with each move, but most of what the fighter is doing is simply interacting with the already poor and boring damage system.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 06:57
|
|
|
Doorknob Slobber posted:inverse world seems like it would be great to stick in there That Old Tree posted:• The damage system. It's a weird swingy mess that is perhaps the most out-of-place "ripped straight out of D&D and shoved into Apocalypse World" of all the unnecessary or lazy D&Disms that plague the game. Like other such glaring examples (Ability scores, the way wizard spells work), it seems like it was included specifically because it was in D&D and for no other reason. Now, it didn't need to use Apocalypse World's combat/damage system, in fact that probably would've been bad when trying to make a game "give you that D&D feel without having to play D&D." But they could've done so much better, even if they still wanted to keep all the wonky dice types "because D&D." I agree. The other weird thing about the damage system is that you can roll a 10+ on Hack and Slash and then... roll a 1 on damage, consequently having the least possible narrative impact of any result. (To avoid that, and the swinginess that comes with it, I'm giving players d4+X damage based on their die size, so it's not quite so deterministic (i.e. they can't predict that they can kill an average guy in 1 hit/2 hits/whatever.) Ability scores aren't ideal either, but, ehh, they do work, and having meaningful statistics would theme the game in a way that would inevitably veer away from generic fantasy. The game would need to be about something in a way that what it's emulating isn't. And, yeah, the fighter gets a lot of damage and armor bonuses and not much else. I've got a Barbarian, a Druid, a Ranger, a Wizard, and a Branded (reworked Immolator). The Branded's weird moves have been the most interesting so far. I'd definitely love to see a cleaned-up, revised Dungeon World that keeps the generic fantasy feel without the specific D&Disms, kind of like how FATE lets me do everything from sky pirates in Eberron to sword & sorcery to pulpy urban fantasy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 11:13
|
|
|
LogicNinja posted:I agree. The other weird thing about the damage system is that you can roll a 10+ on Hack and Slash and then... roll a 1 on damage, consequently having the least possible narrative impact of any result. Don't forget half the lovely monsters have 1 armor too, so you can roll a 10+ and do nothing. Hack and Slash should just kill an enemy you're in melee with on a 10+, there's no reason to drag fights out. Differentiate things you can swordfight by their moves, not their hp and armor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2018 12:39
|
|
|
First, a group of planes would fly as fast as they could to reach a waypoint. When a plane reached the endpoint it would perform high-speed stunts. After it finished performing the high-speed stunts it'd need to fly back to the starting point as slowly as possible, performing one last slow-speed challenge. There'd need to be a way to simulate mechanical failure/stalling/etc. Are there any systems out that that can be modified for this sort of simulation? Edit: I wound up modifying the star wards d20 system, then ditching it for a simpler homebrew set of rules. RandomPauI fucked around with this message at 07:38 on Jan 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 04:55
|
|
|
What always confuses me about PbtA games, and BitD for that matter, is how the GM fairly decides how many obstacles there should be in the way of the PCs before they achieve a goal. My favorite example was the Dimmer Sisters house inflitration which is the sample of play in BitD. It happens that the players manage to convince a ghost to show them where the item they are looking for is. But what if they hadn't done so and/or a roll to find their way failed? There is no map of the house, so the GM is making the house up as they go, and every roll is likely to cause attrition to the players so how big a house does the GM make up? The problem is that most of the classic answers end up with being: * it's based on "drama" so the PCs ought not to really try to overcome obstacles cleanly because the GM will not allow them to complete until they have suffered the correct amount. * it's based on "the session" so the PCs again have no investment in trying to use skill or strategy because the only thing that can let them win is the time in real life. I know people say that having a map would make no difference if the PCs don't know where they're going, but I just don't feel it works like that in practice. Even if you have a "lady or the tiger" choice, it's a whole different ball game if you know someone else is able to swap the rooms around based on their own agenda.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 16:54
|
|
|
hyphz posted:What always confuses me about PbtA games, and BitD for that matter, is how the GM fairly decides how many obstacles there should be in the way of the PCs before they achieve a goal. I propose a Counterpoint. There is very little difference between this and any other role playing game. It's not as if, when you're not using a premade Adventure, that you don't rely on the GM to come up with the obstacles. No Cosmic Force keeps the GM from making it up as they go along and it's pretty much required in every game since actions will never perfectly match up with the original intent of the rules or even the GM's plans. This is nothing you need to pbta, this is simply a reality of the medium.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 17:09
|
|
|
Covok posted:I propose a Counterpoint. There is very little difference between this and any other role playing game. It's not as if, when you're not using a premade Adventure, that you don't rely on the GM to come up with the obstacles. No Cosmic Force keeps the GM from making it up as they go along and it's pretty much required in every game since actions will never perfectly match up with the original intent of the rules or even the GM's plans. This is nothing you need to pbta, this is simply a reality of the medium. If you're using a classic premade adventure with a situation like that, exploring a defined and unusual area, then hopefully there's a map. If there's a map, then even if the PCs are navigating blind, they know that the lady and the tiger is fair. Ok, the PCs can still do weird stuff, but if they decide to pickaxe through a wall for some reason then you still know what's behind it. And if there's a dragon behind it then the players won't leave the table saying "he just put that dragon there to penalize us for axing through his wall". If there's not a map, then the adventure ought at least to be telling the GM how to decide how many obstacles there should be, and ideally the kind of thing they would be, even if they can't tell exactly what they are. But too often they cop out with "let the players have fun with this" or "make it a difficult ride" or something which in practice just comes down to "minimum suffering" or "the wallclock". The worst is "until the players are tired of it" which, if most obstacles cause attrition, basically means that the way to avoid attrition is to become bored as quickly as possible!
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 17:19
|
|
|
hyphz posted:If you're using a classic premade adventure with a situation like that, exploring a defined and unusual area, then hopefully there's a map. If there's a map, then even if the PCs are navigating blind, they know that the lady and the tiger is fair. Ok, the PCs can still do weird stuff, but if they decide to pickaxe through a wall for some reason then you still know what's behind it. And if there's a dragon behind it then the players won't leave the table saying "he just put that dragon there to penalize us for axing through his wall". Counterpoint: most people don't use pre-made adventures in their games. And, when they do, it's only for small bits. Eventually you make your own stuff. Which means making a map becomes difficult. I still do it from time to time, but it's not uncommon to run without one if I can. There are a lot of games where I can definitely do. Hell, I know many people who play Dungeons & Dragons that way. As such, I argue that this problem is just inherent problem to the medium and not something unique to this particular game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 17:34
|
|
|
Covok posted:Counterpoint: most people don't use pre-made adventures in their games. And, when they do, it's only for small bits. Eventually you make your own stuff. Which means making a map becomes difficult. I still do it from time to time, but it's not uncommon to run without one if I can. There are a lot of games where I can definitely do. I actually disagree with that. The success of Paizo on Adventure Paths and of the adventure-centric strategy for D&D 5e shows that there are plenty of players out there who absolutely do play premade adventures regularly. They may not be the "hardcore" players or the ones who hang out on forums, but there are apparently plenty of them. Furthermore, drawing your own map in advance to make an adventure is still fine. It's having to make it up on the spot that's the problem, that seems to put the GM in an impossible quandary. Of course there's also the possibility to play a system without attrition, but that makes the system very light and arguably removes it from the game category entirely.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 17:48
|
|
|
Covok posted:As such, I argue that this problem is just inherent problem to the medium and not something unique to this particular game. That does not, however, free the game designer from the need to provide guidelines for challenge. For example, D&D variants generally suggest some X encounters per rest.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 17:50
|
|
|
Session time seems like a fairly basic measure of how many things you should throw in front of the players. "Remaining resources" is another, but those aren't always quantifiable
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 17:51
|
|
|
Zomborgon posted:That does not, however, free the game designer from the need to provide guidelines for challenge. For example, D&D variants generally suggest some X encounters per rest. If the objection is a lack of map does the game say you shouldn't have a map or is there just not usually one provided? Splicer fucked around with this message at 17:57 on Jan 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 17:55
|
|
|
It's at this moment that I like to point out that the that the original PBTA game, apocalypse world, and most of its derivatives have a system of controlling pacing, be it fronts, quests, Etc, which is controlled by some form of graphic. Like the clock system in Apocalypse world. And blades in the dark uses a similar system. So this is really a discussion about having a physical map. Something that pbta games don't forbid. I mean, dungeon World actually comes with a few maps in the book.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 18:01
|
|
|
Blades in the Dark specifies that a 4-segment clock represents a complex obstacle, and is the average challenge that players will encounter.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 18:01
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Session time seems like a fairly basic measure of how many things you should throw in front of the players. Yea, but both of those lead to degenerate strategies. For example, quite a few games feature "story points" which you can spend to make a challenge easier. This will usually involve making the challenge take less real time, or consume less resources. If the GM is judging the number of obstacles based on real time or remaining resources, then rationally you should never spend story points; if you make the current obstacle take less time or resources, then there will be more obstacles added until the minimum required level of resource expenditure or time is reached. It's like the "never boost when you're in 1st place in Mario Kart because you just aren't allowed to get more than a certain distance ahead" issue. BitD has heavy attrition; failures can count up to consequences which take substantial resource expenditure to resolve. If the GM is fixing that level of resource expenditure in advance as the condition for the number of obstacles to encounter, why bother even trying to deal with the obstacles cleanly? (Edit: I know about clocks in BitD, but there is no clock used for "exploring the mansion" in the sample of play, and using one would be a serious breach of versimilitude. I suspect quite a few groups would actively parody that "hey we have looked in 3 rooms so this is the last spot on the clock, let's go look in the outhouse and the artefact will have to be there!" In addition, does an empty room advance the clock as one full of hostile spirits?) hyphz fucked around with this message at 18:05 on Jan 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 18:02
|
|
|
simply going into a room will not cause a clock to tick. there has to be a roll associated with it, some clocks tick on successes, others tick when you fail.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 18:08
|
|
|
hyphz posted:Yea, but both of those lead to degenerate strategies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 18:15
|
|
|
Serf posted:simply going into a room will not cause a clock to tick. there has to be a roll associated with it, some clocks tick on successes, others tick when you fail. And how risky does that roll have to be? The players will instantly spot that the best strategy is to seek out the lowest risk rolls that still count, which is guaranteed to cause problems about what the threshold is. Does a roll to avoid a trap which chops off your legs count as much as a roll to understand an ancient language? If one of those types doesn't count, how many counting rolls does the GM have to provide compared to non-counting rolls? If they use a wooden pole to trigger the trap thus avoiding it without a roll, does that make it not count, so they should jump into the trap even though they all know it's a bad idea?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 18:15
|
|
|
Splicer posted:If the objection is that the game does not provide guidelines as to what makes for an easy/challenging/hard run then that's a good objection, assuming the game doesn't do this (I haven't played BitD). The former; I too have not played BitD, so any corrections on the following are appreciated. In terms of maps, it seems that the "clock" system is functional from a GM's perspective, but any player knowledge of that system would break it- and if the players nearly always deal with three problems before success, for example, then that's just asking to be reverse-engineered. In a more abstract realm, the clocks are fine, but it seems incompatible with a room-by-room sort of environment. hyphz posted:(Edit: I know about clocks in BitD, but there is no clock used for "exploring the mansion" in the sample of play, and using one would be a serious breach of versimilitude. I suspect quite a few groups would actively parody that "hey we have looked in 3 rooms so this is the last spot on the clock, let's go look in the outhouse and the artefact will have to be there!") Precisely. Even if there must be a challenge to advance things, it still has the "bust through the wall" problem of having to shuffle things around so the clock runs fully before success is allowed occur, invalidating the reason for the map.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 18:16
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Where is this sample of play? Page 137 onwards. They bypass the exploration aspect by having a ghost show them where the artefact is, which is fine for making the example short so that it fits in the book, but not so good for actually showing how to run the game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 18:18
|
|
|
Zomborgon posted:The former; I too have not played BitD, so any corrections on the following are appreciated.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 18:35
|
|
|
Zomborgon posted:Precisely. Even if there must be a challenge to advance things, it still has the "bust through the wall" problem of having to shuffle things around so the clock runs fully before success is allowed occur, invalidating the reason for the map. Serf posted:Blades in the Dark specifies that a 4-segment clock represents a complex obstacle, and is the average challenge that players will encounter. 1) there is security we need to evade to get in 2) we need to locate the necklace once we're inside 3) there is necklace specific security we need to evade 4) we need to get out. I spend a story point or just come up with a real good piece of RP to make finding the necklace a non-issue. Does this still count towards the clock? Is "I don't like it, this was to easy" a central conceit or is going "good job w/d mission complete you really nailed that one" within the game as written? Conversely if we prepared for a hard exit but do something stupid between 2 and 3 to cause Problems, do the credits roll after 3 and it's just assumed we got out? Or is the whole 4 segment clock a formalised "Just go with the flow but probably don't keep throwing poo poo at them after 5 and if there's less than 3 it's probably been kind if a boring session" (which is cool by me) e: I'm aware that in *world games the players mainly throw things at themselves but you get what I mean. Splicer fucked around with this message at 19:15 on Jan 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 19:03
|
|
|
Generally, clocks in pbta are both prescriptive and descriptive. What that means, removing the jargon, is that when a move ticks a clock up something specific happens, and if that thing happens otherwise the clock ticks up to match. So if I have a clock about players finding a necklace, they can keep taking actions to look through the manor (while respecting the fiction) until they've ticked up the clock and they get it, but there's nothing stopping them just finding it too if they look in the right place.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 19:30
|
|
|
hyphz posted:What always confuses me about PbtA games, and BitD for that matter, is how the GM fairly decides how many obstacles there should be in the way of the PCs before they achieve a goal. source your quotes
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 19:36
|
|
|
When did Frank Trollman get an account?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 20:02
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:When did Frank Trollman get an account? Actually he got ninety discrete accounts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 20:08
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:When did Frank Trollman get an account? Nah, I'm not quite that mad against the "magical tea party". But if every sip of tea is gradually draining my life force, I want to know how deep the pot is. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 20:09
|
|
|
hyphz posted:Nah, I'm not quite that mad against the "magical tea party". But if every sip of tea is gradually draining my life force, I want to know how deep the pot is. Splicer fucked around with this message at 20:35 on Jan 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 20:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 10:46 |
|
|
I'm on mobile, so no essays about ~true roleplaying~, but I'll say I'm disappointed that no one's pointed out that you can totally just go ahead and have a map. When I play these games I always sketch out maps of important locations. I don't have a prescriptive list of like bathrooms or closets or whatever, but the main hall and the bed rooms are all in the same place all the time, and making a map really helps keep that poo poo straight. This is true in pretty much every game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2018 20:48
|
|