|
Heliotrope posted:Do you count as having your own people's Fellowship? I'm playing a Dragon who reached level 5 and I'm thinking of taking the Final Form destiny. We don't have any fellowship with Dragons though - would I still be able to take it? I think it's heavily implied that you do, especially since you're your peoples' chosen champion. They wouldn't have gone that far if you weren't in the club. It's possible for there to be a narrative reason that you don't (you're an exile [not The Exile, though, since you can have the Fellowship of the Exiles], or everyone hates you, or you're just Ralph Schmalph, Elf of no consequence). In the absence of that kind of story jiggery pokery, I'd say you're good.
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2021 04:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 05:04 |
|
|
gnome7 posted:You increase your level before making your choice, so you can take it as soon as you reach level 5. So, the former. Thank you! One other thing: for Outlander Gear replacements, do you get only get one replacement Gear per Recovery? Between using it and a few weak rolls I've already lost a few pieces.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2021 23:36
|
|
|
Nah, you can replace as many Outlander Gear options as you have lost, all in a single Recovery. Heliotrope posted:Do you count as having your own people's Fellowship? I'm playing a Dragon who reached level 5 and I'm thinking of taking the Final Form destiny. We don't have any fellowship with Dragons though - would I still be able to take it? Yes, unless you have been disowned by your people somehow, in which case you'd need to earn your Fellowship like everybody else. The default assumption is that you are their champion, so you have access to their Destiny. But Fellowship lore can go all sorts of place, so that's not a hard rule as much as a "eh if you feel like it" kind of rule. If you want to earn your Destiny, go earn some Fellowship like everyone else. If you feel you've already earned it by virtue of being The Dragon and the things you've done for your people, go right ahead - stake your claim.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2021 08:19
|
|
|
I just got Fellowship and have been really loving it. It's great to see how it addresses issues that cropped up in my long running Dungeon World game. (That game was still a great experience, but DW gets creaky at high levels.) I also really like seeing some of Dungeon World and especially Inverse World's strengths expanded on, like integrating Bonds more broadly. I'm hoping to run a one or two shot Fellowship session in a few weeks. The book has some good pointers for this (and I'll be listening to the Six Feats Under podcast's short playthrough with Inverse World) but I was wondering if anyone had additional tips for one shot Fellowship games.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2021 19:56
|
|
|
Does anyone have any advice for what pacing looks like in Fellowship? I mean I guess it's heavily contextual on amount of players and what they want to do but like how long do people find sessions to take, how long does it take people to overcome setpieces and problems, stuff like that. I'm going to start my first campaign of this and am curious about how long a session tends to be, I like to shoot for around 2.5-3 hours.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 03:08
|
|
|
2.5-3 hours is the sweet spot for a Fellowship session, IMHO. Some set pieces will take longer than that, and some will take less, but that depends a lot on your group. The fewer players you have, and the more experienced they are, the faster players will be able solve setpieces. The more players you have and the earlier you are in the campaign, the slower the group will move. It will also depend a lot on how quickly players can decide on what they want to do, and how much they want to roleplay those decisions. Just plan to be flexible the first few sessions you run, and let players drive the scene after you establish it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 13:09
|
|
|
So I've run a few session of Fellowship. My group (including myself) is most used to playing D&D-likes, so we've had some t rouble adjusting and figuring things out. We're getting it - gradually - but there's a question that's come up that none of us really seem equipped to answer, and it concerns Advantage. Specifically: a 9- on Finish Them, or Striking from Advantage, causes you to lose your Advantage. When Advantage comes from someone Keeping Them Busy or striking from ambush, this makes a certain amount of sense, but what if your Advantage comes from using the right weapon (e.g., using ahammer against skeletal warriors)? How about if you're just a skilled warrior fighting a rookie? How is that an advantage one can lose?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2021 02:12
|
|
|
In that case, it represents your advantage no longer applying. A skilled warrior uses their skill to overcome a rookie and get a solid hit in - now the rookie is on the defensive and trying hard not to leave any openings, you need to do a little more to get that next push through. Your hammer obliterated one of the skeletons, and now the remaining skeletons are very wary of it - you need to do something to distract them or pull their attention away if you want to get another good hit with it. Or, perhaps, you can reveal that the hammer wasn't as effective as you'd hoped - it did damage, sure, but it wasn't as strong as you'd expected. Using it again isn't quite the advantage you thought it was.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2021 05:03
|
|
|
Makes sense. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2021 13:15
|
|
|
If I have multiple different 'spell' moves that contain a variation of the phrase "when you Fill Your Belly, unmark one of your used spells", does that only apply to one of the moves of my choice, or all of them? Like if I have used a spell from Move1 and a spell from Move2, when I Fill My Belly can I unmark one from both, or do I have to choose? And does this compete with the standard 'heal a stat' function of belly-filling?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2021 23:18
|
|
|
Farg posted:If I have multiple different 'spell' moves that contain a variation of the phrase "when you Fill Your Belly, unmark one of your used spells", does that only apply to one of the moves of my choice, or all of them? Like if I have used a spell from Move1 and a spell from Move2, when I Fill My Belly can I unmark one from both, or do I have to choose? And does this compete with the standard 'heal a stat' function of belly-filling? 1) As far as I know, each "when you Fill Your Belly, unmark X" is a separate instance of that effect and they're all independent. 2) No, it's a bonus. When you Fill Your Belly (which does all the other mechanical things that move does), you also do X.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2021 23:38
|
|
|
When the Overlord gets a Plan to level 3, is it immediately resolved and replaced with a level 0 plan, or does it sit at level 3 occupying a Plot Slot until you Advance Your Plans again?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2021 19:11
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:When the Overlord gets a Plan to level 3, is it immediately resolved and replaced with a level 0 plan, or does it sit at level 3 occupying a Plot Slot until you Advance Your Plans again? It is immediately replaced, yes. The Overlord/Empire will always have 2 plans running at once. As soon as they complete one, or as soon as the fellowship stops one, they get to write a new plan at level 0.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2021 07:16
|
|
|
The graphic design and layout of the Fellowship playbooks, as documents meant to be printed and used in play, are quite snazzy. Most of the playbooks lend themselves to two double-sided pages, when it comes to printing them. What do you recommend when printing the 3-page Nemesis and its companion playbook, the Redeemed?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2021 12:07
|
|
|
Iron Heart posted:The graphic design and layout of the Fellowship playbooks, as documents meant to be printed and used in play, are quite snazzy. It'd be a pain to get it to print right, but if you did 3 double sided sheets, with the Nemesis on one side and the corresponding Redeemed page on the other, it'd be easy to use in play.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2021 08:11
|
|
|
Tsilkani posted:It'd be a pain to get it to print right, but if you did 3 double sided sheets, with the Nemesis on one side and the corresponding Redeemed page on the other, it'd be easy to use in play. It wasn't a pain at all. In the Windows print dialogue, at least, you just have to punch in individual pages "1,4,2,5,3,6", select double-sided, and your print driver should* take care of everything. Did with my test print before I even thought to ask if there was a better way. Of course, the printings only flip on the long edge because my printer (or Windows printing service) doesn't like landscape pages, but that's a different issue.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2021 19:29
|
|
|
Can a move like "Cultural Appreciation" (take a custom from any basic playbook) take a move that is listed as "cannot be shared"?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2021 21:22
|
|
|
Farg posted:Can a move like "Cultural Appreciation" (take a custom from any basic playbook) take a move that is listed as "cannot be shared"? No, it cannot. Moves that cannot be shared are intended to be exclusive to the playbook they are printed on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2021 23:05
|
|
|
ah phooey. I'll just have to find another way to improbably summon my loved ones across space
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2021 00:05
|
|
|
Farg posted:ah phooey. I'll just have to find another way to improbably summon my loved ones across space BFFs from across the rift, heed my call!
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2021 02:13
|
|
|
I discovered in my last Fellowship session that it's somewhat inadvisable to bring a Horde against an Ogre. (Or at least the way I played it was inadvisable.) We were playing The Chase scenario, and one of the players suggested that they were being followed by so many soldiers that it would be folly to turn and fight. I pulled out a Gang of Horde Troopers ("about a hundred or so"), plus an extra Group of Horde Lockdown for variety. The party ended up backed up against a raging river, and while they were momentarily stymied, the soldiers started pouring out of the forest. And so, of course, the party turned and fought. No cleverness, just digging in their heels and punching. The troopers got in some licks early, but the players quickly managed to whittle them into two Groups (thanks to the Ogre's Dangerous fists), then one of the Groups into two individuals. Since the players weren't trying to move, the Lockdown was fairly useless. At this point I honestly started losing track of all the bad guys. I ended up having the Lockdown drop their spears and pull out bows (changing on-the-fly into Horde Archers in an attempt to slow down the players, though it never really helped). Once the players bashed the remaining trooper Group down into two more individuals, I just had the survivors retreat, shaking their fists. The combat was getting repetitive anyway. The main trouble was having the Gang break down into smaller and smaller bits and trying to remember how many of everything there was. I hate to think what would have happened if I'd used a whole Army. Looking back on it, I feel like I may have undersold the damage/annoyance potential of the Gang. If I'd done more than one point of damage per failure to Overcome, or started breaking equipment, or something, the players might have felt the need to think outside the box. But as it was, they could keep punching just fine, and if it ain't broke ...
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 23:17
|
|
|
The End of Session move makes references to choosing players to level up, in all of its printings. The Rebellion, despite not belonging to a particular player, is noted as being unable to Level Up; the Ship is noted as always being an eligible choice to Level Up. The Overlord is notable for having a Level like the other players, and gains benefits from being chosen to Level Up. What's the deal with the Horizon and the Empire, do they just not escalate outside of Response Level, Notoriety Level, and Power Moves?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 01:56
|
|
|
The Horizon and the Empire do not level up using the End of Session move, no. The Empire can expand by completing their Plans to get new Leaders (with a new Leadership move) and new Locations (with a new Power Move), but the Horizon does not improve throughout the course of the adventure. Doing so would kind of defeat the purpose of it being an episodic framework, I think.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 02:27
|
|
|
The level that goes to a possible adversary can also go to the Ship especially if you're doing a Horizon game.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 02:36
|
|
|
I feel like this has been asked somewhere before, but: Are an Overlord's plans secret?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 04:59
|
|
|
Until revealed through play, yes. Their plans should have an impact on the world that makes them apparent before they complete - if the Fellowship isn't aware of them, they should be once it is one step from completion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 07:19
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Veliministriari/status/1470159080899723264?s=20 gnome7 posted some thoughts on what she'd do for a third edition of Fellowship! And I have a lot of thoughts on it! Most of them will be on the parts I dislike, because there's a lot here and it's easier to keep negative thoughts straight, and any posts with those thoughts will be long enough without me going "yeah, this change really good" for a dozen things too! But I feel really awkward about posting this link and then dumping a dozen complaints, so I'm just going to leave this for a day and write all of that tomorrow, after more people have had a chance to see it! But seriously, it is nice to see these kinds of early design thoughts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 04:53
|
|
|
Ohhh man I like the idea of The Cage, I like that as tonal/scope compromise between the Horizon and Overlord. I like a lot of these ideas a good deal, especially the change to Bonds because honestly my players are ignoring how that system works/grants hope, but I think 3e could stand to clarify just what defeating enemies actually entails. Granted this may be a, me problem and not grokking what's laid out in 2e so far but I'm having some issues getting the loop down of Finishing Enemies if that makes any sense. I get that enemies have traits that need to be defeated, but does a trait need to be Finished to be knocked off the enemy, or can you just do whatever necessary to knock a trait out and then Finish the enemy when all traits are gone, or do you need to defeat every single trait? It's not really hurting my game any, I'm way more focused on the narrative framework than the actual mechanics and I'm 100% down for abstracting things to just let my players be cool and have a story, but I'm curious as to how precisely it works. (also our setting is a desert/plains planet where space is a sea of aether where the angels are game testers and storytellers who keep creating worlds to see how the stories play out and the Overlord is meant to be the elemental end of the world who collects people/heritages/souvenirs from the world to be used in future works/preserved before it's turned into planet that is up in the night sky as a finished story. In the last world the people blew up the sun in retaliation to being pawns and one people created an ark of knowledge for worthy successors who might end the cycle and pretty much everyone was exploded in elemental fire, and one of the angels has taken blowing up the sun personally and has come down as the Overlord and is taking his sweet time taking over the world. Just extremely "we could not solve this problem with violence and doomsday weapons, you're going to have to find your own path but we're going to put as much of our accrued knowledge in your hands, please please please be responsible even if you're the only hope we've all got".)
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 05:39
|
|
|
Finish Them knocks most non-Threat to the World enemies straight out of the fight on a 10+, no matter how many traits they have or how much damage they've taken previously. Groups/Gangs/etc. are immediately reduced. Rolling 7-9 damages a trait instead, but they remain standing until you knock out all their traits. What "Finishing Them" looks like depends on the stat you used, but they're no longer a threat in any case. BTW, I gotta say, I LOVE the idea that Finishing a bad guy in 3e might give you a Bond with them (if they're not dead). Dunno what that implies about picking up enemies as Companions though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 06:12
|
|
|
Mirage posted:BTW, I gotta say, I LOVE the idea that Finishing a bad guy in 3e might give you a Bond with them (if they're not dead). Dunno what that implies about picking up enemies as Companions though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 06:31
|
|
|
Mirage posted:BTW, I gotta say, I LOVE the idea that Finishing a bad guy in 3e might give you a Bond with them (if they're not dead). You say that like an enemy possibly coming back from seeming (or actual) death isn't sick as poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 07:00
|
|
|
Lurks With Wolves posted:
Please share your negative thoughts, there is no better time for them than during the drafting/planning stage Hostile V posted:Granted this may be a, me problem and not grokking what's laid out in 2e so far but I'm having some issues getting the loop down of Finishing Enemies Its been said, but basically: 10+ on Finish Them means they are no longer a threat to you. Period. Danger has passed, they can no longer harm you. 7-9 means instead of that, you just deal damage. Damage marks one of their stats, and makes the rules text with that stat no longer apply. If they cannot mark any more stats, then they get defeated, same as if you had gotten that 10+ result. The intention is that setting up the Finish Them is the hard part - if you have the right opening, you can end it right then and there. The Fellowship are champions, most of the world is only a roadblock.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 09:57
|
|
|
Anyway I wrote up The Mountain as a sample 3E playbook, to get a feel for the various changes I've been thinking about. Have a look, please share thoughts. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UacMzFL9caC_MAxqg-w9UGDJVRMzCgDlpFQehkQvd-w/edit?usp=sharing
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 17:24
|
|
|
Did I miss an announcement of a 3rd Edition of Fellowship?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 17:31
|
|
|
It is in very early planning phases but yes, I have contracted a terrible case of Idea-Having https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Udfl6KPep4Zqq8eCjy2oK70IjpRHau2zGUQrTbkE1lc/edit
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 17:34
|
|
|
gnome7 posted:Its been said, but basically: 10+ on Finish Them means they are no longer a threat to you. Period. Danger has passed, they can no longer harm you. A thing that was a little unclear when I was playing and running, does this preclude them from ever being a threat again at a later point? I know there are special enemies like the Team Rocket ones that explicitly come back and playbooks like the Nemesis/Redeemed exist, but what if you want a familiar foe in a new context, like they bar you socially rather than physically, or they got a power-up or general change in approach?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 17:37
|
|
|
Oh sure, they can come back. They're done with for the current scene/story but if they show up later, yeah they're a new Threat again. Just, a new threat you can use all your old history with. Heck they don't even need to have the same stat block, one recurring frenemy/rival in one of my campaigns kept one stat between all his incarnations but was otherwise a new threat each time, with a new stat block depending on what I needed him to do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 18:01
|
|
|
Alright. I promised some complaints about the proposed third edition changes, so here they are. But first, I do want to emphasize that there's a lot of good stuff in here. The Cage framework is a really cool idea, the stat and playbook name changes are good, the Group/Gang/Army change is so good my group is going to just port it back into 2e, and there's probably more than that I'm forgetting. But talking about why something is bad is easier than talking about why something's good, so here we are. quote:===== Gear becomes Limited Moves ===== On an organizational level... well, this is a choice. I don't know how much of a benefit changing the split from "moves/gear" to "things you permanently have/things with charges you use up" would have, but it is definitely a change you could make if you really wanted to make one. On a mechanical level, I am worried this is going to end up making things too mechanically complicated if you aren't careful. Don't get me wrong, making all the gear choices more interesting is a good goal and one I completely stand by. No one thinks picking between a survival knife and an extra quiver is interesting. However, just remember an evocative descriptive sentence can do a lot to make choices interesting, and you have an entire tag system you're expanding for a reason. My worries are more about the organization than the mechanics, but either way be careful with it. As a concept, I'm good to fine with messing with the format of player moves. However, I am worried about this, for two main reasons. quote:Custom Moves are unique moves that anyone in the party can take, as long as someone in the party is using that playbook. For example, if there is an Orc in the party, then everyone has the option to take the Orc Custom Move "Bloodhound" as a level-up option. 1) As they currently stand, custom moves are in that liminal space where it isn't entirely clear whether they're unique qualities of your people, something that can be taught or something weird in-between. This is nice, because it gives you room to define what these custom moves mean in the context of your people and sharing moves is generally limited enough that you can decide what giving this move to someone else means. This change means you'd need to read over every custom move again to make sure they work conceptually as just customs you're teaching other members of the party and if they don't, how do you massage their flavor to work that way (and good luck with doing that for moves like Elf Eyes and Bloodhound). And I don't know if you've noticed, but there's a lot of playbooks with a lot of custom moves, and this is supposed to be the seminal, final version of Fellowship that doesn't need to be touched up or errata'd and if any of the choices you make feel weird they're going to feel weird forever. 2) This can lead to diluting what makes each playbook unique in any given group. Sharing moves can do this, but the thing about sharing moves is that it's something both sides agree to and is actively framed as a mutual action. Under this system, I play the Elf* and add all the Elf customs to the pool. Everyone else in the party windmill slams an Elf custom. Now the thematic and mechanical elements that make my playbook uniquely Elven have been diluted into the entire party, and that can actually be a lot of dilution if I'm in a party with other playbooks that are graceful and magical like the Angel or any magical playbook with high Grace. What I like about advancement in PBTA games is that you start as a generic if notable example of your playbook, and over time that gets refined down into what is uniquely Your version of that playbook and your character. I'm becoming the best version of my Elf, the rest of you are becoming the best versions of your Squire and Dragon. Now everyone can kind of become an Elf, and it's easy enough and a basic enough function of advancement that it doesn't feel special the way the Elf deciding to share a move with someone does. (And then you get to Destiny customs doing the same thing and it gets really weird, because suddenly you're the destined oracle and your goblin friend has a way to predict the future you don't.) *I know the Elf's name is probably being changed. I just have a deep emotional connection to this playbook in particular despite/because of it being an early playbook that's kind of been outshone. (Also as another compliment before I go back to criticizing: as someone who's going to play the Harbinger in an upcoming game and is really feeling the difference in early and late powerful playbooks, I'm all for removing the distinction entirely.) quote:Add a threat currency to the Framework's basic rules (Tavel's idea. I think. Podcast voices are hard). Gain points when the fellowship succeeds, spend points to summon more guys to stop them. Points may be spent to modify situations and threats also. Set Pieces, Generals, and the Overlord themselves function outside of this point tally, but the Overlord can use them when they are on the scene to supplement their strength. Listen. If this ends up just being a fancy way to teach GMs how to modulate enemy threat level, this is fine. As is, given how you've described it in this doc so far, I'm getting the vibe that I'm playing a Descent-alike and the rules manual just said "once the adventurers take the treasure, place Orc tokens on tiles C4 and C5". Which is weird when avoiding that vibe is one of the stated goals of the third edition. Also, given the amount of variability in what a threat or setpiece actually entails and how much of their strength is tied up in how the GM runs them, the actual results of "spend one token to throw a threat at the party" are going to vary wildly. I agree that Fellowship could use better tools to help GMs design encounters and have a good threat level across the campaign, but those need to be teaching tools and not artificially game-y mechanics. Anyway, those are my main points. I may rope my GM into posting her thoughts at some point if she feels like it and she has any points I didn't cover. Maybe she won't feel like it and I won't. Who knows?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 20:30
|
|
|
I think overhauling/removing the basic/powerful distinction is a good move. We're deep into a second longterm 2e game and there has always been some confusion over what makes something basic vs powerful. is it narrative power, mechanical, complexity? there are basic playbooks that can help essentially start out with super powers and powerful playbooks that can be a lot more grounded, as it were
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 20:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 05:04 |
|
|
Farg posted:I think overhauling/removing the basic/powerful distinction is a good move. We're deep into a second longterm 2e game and there has always been some confusion over what makes something basic vs powerful. is it narrative power, mechanical, complexity? there are basic playbooks that can help essentially start out with super powers and powerful playbooks that can be a lot more grounded, as it were Also, I'm playing the Harbinger in a group that also has the Devil and occasionally an Angel in an upcoming game, and... yeah, you really feel the difference in when each powerful playbook was designed. Just get rid of the division and sand out that power curve so we don't have to worry about it, is my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 21:13
|
|