Barf Forth Apocalyptica
powered by the apocalypse => Dungeon World => Topic started by: Glitch on March 01, 2012, 09:19:46 AM
-
In the thread on PC HP we came to an analogy of HP representing the level of mistakes a character can make and still survive. I don't think this gels with the new rule establishing starting HP as Constitution score + base. This rule implies that HP (at least at the beginning) is more representative of how physically tough you are. I think it really should corrolate with class more, the Fighter should always have more starting HP than the Wizard, regardless of Constitution.
I'm also worried that any player with an ounce of min/maxing in them will always slot their 17 in Constitution now. I think this is a shame, because the prior starting HP system didn't lead to this stat imbalance.
To preserve the concept of what sage communicated about what HP represents, while still retaining the desire to give starting PCs a bump to increase their survivability, I propose the following:
Your starting HP is equal to twice your class' base, plus your CON (modifier).
Here are some quick comparisons of the systems.
Beta 1.1:
Wizard (8 CON), HP=12
Fighter (8 CON), HP=15
Wizard (17 CON), HP=21
Fighter (17 CON), HP=24
Proposed revision:
Wizard (8 CON), HP=7
Fighter (8 CON), HP=13
Wizard (17 CON), HP=10
Fighter (17 CON), HP=16
In the second scheme, the Fighter always has more HP than the Wizard, reflecting the nature of what HP should represent. It also restores CON to a more balanced stat among the others.
Thoughts?
-
I actually kind of like the idea. It also reinforces the idea that wizards have no place in melee, priests and thieves can get in on the action if they keep their wits about them and look for opportunities, and fighters/paladins/rangers really should be at the fore.
-
I admit to being new to this discussion, not having followed the HP thread too closely, but in my fuzzy recollections of playing OD&D way back in the day, I seem to remember that some races and/or classes had imposed limits on their ability scores.
Might this be one way to address this issue? For example, limit the Wizard to a maximum starting CON score?
So, your example for Beta 1.1 might instead look something like this, where the maximum starting CON for a wizard is 12:
Wizard (8 CON), HP=12
Fighter (8 CON), HP=15
Wizard (12 CON), HP=16
Fighter (17 CON), HP=24
-
That still leaves the issue of starting HP being based mostly on CON. Even in OD&D this wasn't the case, the "Fighting Man"'s hit dice were greater than the other classes'.
-
"I'm also worried that any player with an ounce of min/maxing in them will always slot their 17 in Constitution now. "
I'd usually expect players to stick that 17 in the main stat for their class. It's the only one that yields a +2 bonus, isn't it?
If I imagine my character doing lots of X, I'm going to stick the big bonus in the stat that applies to X.
-
We've thought about presenting stats as arrays or choices so the Fighter will always have higher Con than the Wizard, but after a lot of discussion we decided against it (so far).
The fact is, different classes have different priorities. If the Wizard wants to have 17 Con it's a strange choice, but playable. The Fighter can drop their second highest stat, a 15, in Con and still have more HP.
Our goal is more or less: if the Fighter wants to focus on HPs they should be able to have more. If they don't focus on HPs they should most likely have more. If they dump stat Con, they're choosing to play a strange fighter, no guarantees that someone else won't have more HP.
-
Oddly enough, having just read the HPs on PCs thread (http://apocalypse-world.com/forums/index.php?topic=2365.0) and seen Sage's numbers therein, I was left with the conclusion that CON doesn't matter much to HP.
1st Level 13 Con Fighter: 20 HP
1st Level 17 Con Fighter: 24 HP
...
10th Level 13 Con Fighter: 92 HP
10th Level 17 Con Fighter: 98.25 HP
It's a 4hp difference between +1 and +2 at first level and only an average 6hp difference at 10th level; that's a reasonable bump at first level, but it declines in significance as you level. IMO, the main reason to put a 17 into CON is still because you want to do moves which use CON (for me, that's usually because I want to Defend).
-
Actually I just talked this over with Adam again and we're thinking of revising stat assignment just a bit to a) streamline play, b) make the character you create fit your class better, and c) help distinguish between say the Fighter and the Wizard. (Of course there will be a section in the Advanced Delving chapter about doing it differently). The system is:
Instead of just saying "Assign 17, 15, 13, 11, 9, 8 to your stats" each class has a split list like this: Assign 17, 15, and 13 to Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution. Assign 11, 9, and 8 to Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma.
(This would be for the Fighter, each class would be different.)
This isn't about "fixing" the "value" of Con but just helping new players and making characters fit their class by default. Thoughts?
-
I feel that the actual stat values are fairly pointless once play starts, so I'd be happy to see character generation just use the stat bonuses. The names themselves are enough of a D&D reference for me (but YMMV).
Although that would necessitate reworking HP again. Sorry about that.
-
Assign 17, 15, and 13 to Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution. Assign 11, 9, and 8 to Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma. (This would be for the Fighter, each class would be different.)
This could also act as a safety net against players sabotaging their character through ineffective builds? Will this hamper certain character concepts?
-
It may hamper certain concepts, but that's the tradeoff to making it easy to pick up. We will mention in the hacking chapter "If you've played Dungeon World (or similar games) enough that you feel like you have a handle on the stats you can just assign them as you please."
-
Actually I just talked this over with Adam again and we're thinking of revising stat assignment just a bit to a) streamline play, b) make the character you create fit your class better, and c) help distinguish between say the Fighter and the Wizard. (Of course there will be a section in the Advanced Delving chapter about doing it differently). The system is:
Instead of just saying "Assign 17, 15, 13, 11, 9, 8 to your stats" each class has a split list like this: Assign 17, 15, and 13 to Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution. Assign 11, 9, and 8 to Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma.
(This would be for the Fighter, each class would be different.)
This isn't about "fixing" the "value" of Con but just helping new players and making characters fit their class by default. Thoughts?
Strong dislike.
Firstly because it's totally unnecessary. I've never had a player be confused about assigning stats.
Secondly because it stops people making interesting but totally valid choices. e.g. "I want to be a savvy fighter who looks for an enemies weaknesses (high WIS)" "I want to be a charismatic fighter, the iron fist in the velvet glove (high CHA)"
-
I Liked the "Your starting HP is equal to twice your class' base, plus your CON (modifier)" proposal.
-
"I feel that the actual stat values are fairly pointless once play starts"
I fell that too, that's why I mailed the authors sending feedback asking why won't use only modifiers? stats numbers are pretty useles, so why not using only the modifiers.
That way the starting HP could be easily the "Twice base + CON mod" proposal above.
-
This could also act as a safety net against players sabotaging their character through ineffective builds?
It may hamper certain concepts, but that's the tradeoff to making it easy to pick up.
It's already easy to pick up! Preventing beginners making mistakes is a very easy GM job. Perhaps the book could have suggestions (as various editions of D&D have done), but restrictions... ugh. Yuck, yuck, yuck.
-
We still have the base stats because we're making uses for them. We don't feel we can cut them because they're classic, so instead we're making them useful.
For instance, you can carry up to your Strength score in 0-weight items for free, after that each is 1 weight.
Your soul is resurrectable for a number of days after death equal to your Wisdom score.
Your Charisma score is subtracted from some prices, in situations where a smile is worth a discount.
-
Possible revision:
Assign 17 to one of these three stats: Strength, Constitution, or Dexterity. Assign 15, 13, 11, 9, 8 to your remaining stats.
-
I have run over 10 Dungeon World one-offs, most for people who haven't played the game before and assigning stats has never been a problem for any of those 40 or so players. Assigning stats, and in fact the entire character generation process, is very quick already. The biggest delay was buying equipment, but you've fixed that with the pre-chosen lists. Now the biggest time sink is telling each other about the characters, the GM asking questions, and writing bonds.
In fact, I think adding restrictions would slow it down: people would have to check that their selections fit the restrictions, there would be at least one discussion about wanting to break the restriction.
-
Though, really, anyone reading this should be using the "assign your stats as you please" rule anyway. Maybe it should be in the phrasing instead:
If this is your first time playing this class assign 17, 15, 13 to Strength, Consitution, and Dexterity, then assign 11, 9, 8 to your remaining stats. If you've played this class before assign 17, 15, 13, 11, 9, 8 as you please.
-
Anarchangel, any idea how many of those had already played D&D and therefore had basically already played DW?
In my personal experience playing with non-gamers we regularly had to pretty much just tell the newbie what to do with stats.
-
Possible revision:
Assign 17 to one of these three stats: Strength, Constitution, or Dexterity. Assign 15, 13, 11, 9, 8 to your remaining stats.
This is a solution in search of a problem, IMO.
I think this is part of the GMs job at the start: introduce the playbooks, say what the stats do, answer questions.
-
Anarchangel, any idea how many of those had already played D&D and therefore had basically already played DW?
In my personal experience playing with non-gamers we regularly had to pretty much just tell the newbie what to do with stats.
I would say most had played D&D before, but for those that hadn't (and in fact even for those that have, because WIS and INT work differently in DW than in D&D), a brief run through the stats and moves seems more elegant and useful.
e.g. "If you want to be smacking people in the face with your weapon, assign a high strength. If you want to be jumping around and swinging of chandeliers, assign a high dex. Etc etc."
Do you do that when you hand out character sheets?
-
I do that, but then you have to special case it for each playbook. Most recently the newbie played the Wizard, which meant having to point out that Intelligence was their spellcasting stat, etc. I don't want to have to do that all the time! Make the playbooks do that.
-
What about a pregen stat selection. So its assign your stats as you please or consider just using STR 17, DEX 13, CON 15, INT 8, WIS 9, CHA 11. That way new players can have a suggested stat selection to work from if they want.
-
I know that everyone on this forum is great at making new rules and breaking the rules as they see fit, since they know the game. This isn't a rule for you! You use the other rule, the one that says "Assign your stats as you please."
The frustrating part for me is that we, as DW players, know that playing (for example) a 9 Wisdom Cleric is playing on Hard Mode. You'd better have a good idea what you're doing. The playbooks need to communicate that and I hate communicating it as a "recommendation." It should be the default that the Cleric has their highest score in Wisdom, anything else is advanced play for people who know what they're doing.
-
I always point out the stats that are used to cast spells anyway, or that dex is used for thief-y stuff.
You could arrange the lines on the playbooks giving the array into a suggested array on each playbooks, but I really don't think it belongs in the rules proper.
e.g. Fighter: You have the following stats, arranged like this, or in some other order: Str 17(+2), Dex 15(+1), Con 13(+1), Int 11(0), Wis 9(0), Cha 8(-1).
-
The rules proper and the playbooks are the exact same, I think they'll stay that way.
But I did just suggest the same thing to Adam:
You have Strength 17, Constitution 13, Dexterity 15, Intelligence 9, Wisdom 11, and Charisma 8 by default. Swap stats as you please.
-
The frustrating part for me is that we, as DW players, know that playing (for example) a 9 Wisdom Cleric is playing on Hard Mode. You'd better have a good idea what you're doing. The playbooks need to communicate that and I hate communicating it as a "recommendation." It should be the default that the Cleric has their highest score in Wisdom, anything else is advanced play for people who know what they're doing.
I definitely see where you're coming from. The counter argument is that making it a rule means that people have to break the rules to do something interesting and I feel like DW's great strength over D&D is that you get to do all that interesting stuff that you could always do in D&D, but only when you broke the rules.
-
The rules proper and the playbooks are the exact same, I think they'll stay that way.
But I did just suggest the same thing to Adam:
You have Strength 17, Constitution 13, Dexterity 15, Intelligence 9, Wisdom 11, and Charisma 8 by default. Swap stats as you please.
And actually, that's pretty close to something you suggested up-thread as well:
If this is your first time playing this class assign 17, 15, 13 to Strength, Consitution, and Dexterity, then assign 11, 9, 8 to your remaining stats. If you've played this class before assign 17, 15, 13, 11, 9, 8 as you please.
-
This is more action than this forum has seen in a while. Quick Sage, suggest another rules change!
-
Great thread guys!
I like the idea of a 'suggested array' for first time players, the same way as in BX D&D the rules gave you suggestions on which class to choose based on your (rolled) stats. Since DW chooses playbook, then stats, it only makes sense to have a similar level of guidance 'baked in' to the playbooks.
I would have the Stats listed on each playbook in order of 'suggested importance', with the array to match. So continuing the fighter example:
Fighters rely on their strength in battle (STR), fast reactions (DEX) and stout resolve (CON) to overcome whatever the dungeon throws at them. For your first game, we suggest this is a good starting point -
Strength (suggested 17) +2
Dexterity (15) +1
Constitution (13) +1
Wisdom (11) 0
Intelligence (9) 0
Charisma (8 ) -1
If you comfortable with Dw (or roleplaying) you may consider swapping Stat Allocations as you see fit for the concept of your fighter.
Have the basics (and the options for advanced players) listed on the playbook.
-
The rules proper and the playbooks are the exact same, I think they'll stay that way.
But I did just suggest the same thing to Adam:
You have Strength 17, Constitution 13, Dexterity 15, Intelligence 9, Wisdom 11, and Charisma 8 by default. Swap stats as you please.
And actually, that's pretty close to something you suggested up-thread as well:
If this is your first time playing this class assign 17, 15, 13 to Strength, Consitution, and Dexterity, then assign 11, 9, 8 to your remaining stats. If you've played this class before assign 17, 15, 13, 11, 9, 8 as you please.
Pretty close, but the intent was that 17, 15, 13 go to those stats any way you please. 17 Con, 15 Dex, 13 Str maybe. Or 17 Dex, 13 Con, 15 Str. Whatever.
The way I see it there are far more ways to screw up the stats than make a character playable by the average player. The 9 Con Fighter is advanced play, as is the 9 Wisdom Cleric, the 9 Charisma Bard, etc. They're not wrong, but you need to know what you're getting into, and it has to be a warning with teeth.
Part of this is that I hate prose stat advice with a vengance. How many times have we all read "Strength will help you hit and do damage. Constitution and Dexterity are important to defense. Intelligence will give you more skills." or something like it? They're instantly ignorable by even first-time players. It took me years of D&D play to realize that "recommended starting packages" were actually the best way to play most of the time because they seemed like crutches, not the default. This kind of soft recommendation is utterly lame.
I'd like a system that makes a good stat array a hard default, one that will often be taken. Note that there can be multiple "good" stat arrays, we just shouldn't have arrays that make the character harder to play. AW does this by just having you choose from stat arrays, but we've got this tradition of assigning scores (plus listing arrays takes more space than I'd like).
Spitballing some ideas:
Questionarie-style: "Are spells your bread and butter? If so Int 17"
Arrays: Choose Str 17, Dex 15, Con 13 or Str 15, Con 13, Dex 17
Prime Requisites: To play a wizard you must put a stat with a positive modifier in Intelligence. To play a fighter you must put a stat with a positive modifier in two of Strength, Dexterity, and Consitution.
Procedure: Look over the basic moves and your class moves. Chose a move to define your character, the stat used by that move gets 17. Then introduce the other players to your moves and ask them which basic or class move will help them the most, that one gets 15. Assign the rest of your stats as you see fit.
-
I dig the idea of a questionnaire if any thing, if the worry is for new players than hitching the stat choice to fiction is best.
I also like the check your moves advise, maybe that should be a question? "Do you see a move you really like, put a X in that stat" or something. Maybe even tailored more like for the Thief "do you plan on using the backstab or hack and slash move as often as possible? Place a 15 or 17 in Strength"
-
I like the "keep it simple" rule. How about a single line of text something like, "For new players, each playbook has a suggested order of importance." (Or something like that.) And then the stat boxes on the playbooks could have light grey A,B,C,D,E and F to show that order of importance?
-
Pretty close, but the intent was that 17, 15, 13 go to those stats any way you please. 17 Con, 15 Dex, 13 Str maybe. Or 17 Dex, 13 Con, 15 Str. Whatever.
Yep, I got it. The big similarity was "Hey, do this____, but if you've played before do this _____"
I'd like a system that makes a good stat array a hard default, one that will often be taken.
With you here too. It sounds like a hard default is okay solves the problem: namely that a first time player could get bad/no GM advice and make an un-fun character.
Spitballing some ideas:
Questionarie-style: "Are spells your bread and butter? If so Int 17"
Arrays: Choose Str 17, Dex 15, Con 13 or Str 15, Con 13, Dex 17
Prime Requisites: To play a wizard you must put a stat with a positive modifier in Intelligence. To play a fighter you must put a stat with a positive modifier in two of Strength, Dexterity, and Consitution.
Procedure: Look over the basic moves and your class moves. Chose a move to define your character, the stat used by that move gets 17. Then introduce the other players to your moves and ask them which basic or class move will help them the most, that one gets 15. Assign the rest of your stats as you see fit.
I too like the questionnaire-style (with the procedure-style integrated into the questions), because it establishes right off the bat that the fiction matters more than the numbers, that this is a game about dialogue between GM and player, and that this is what a character will be doing in the game.
In a way it's a codification of the run-through the stats at the start of the game, so I personally think it's a good GM habit to instill.
Prime reqs and arrays would probably be quicker, but wouldn't establish the flavour/tone/style.
-
That's interesting Sage, I never characterised that suggestions from the game designers for starting characters were crutches and therefore lame. Huh. Now that you mention it, I do recall players adopting that point of view. 'Fuck you game designers, what would you know? You ain't telling me how to choose my character, so I'll choose this in spite of your (very good!) advice.'
I've always liked Vx's (and Your) reliance on lists and choices from lists. Maybe the default could be from three or four arrays that are pre-assigned to the stat block, with descriptive tags. So:
Choose your stat block:
Are you a hardened Fighter? Then choose - Strength 17, Constitution 13, Dexterity 15, Intelligence 9, Wisdom 11, and Charisma 8
Or a tough, wily fighter? Then choose - Strength 13, Constitution 17, Dexterity 11, Intelligence 8, Wisdom 15, and Charisma 9
Or a fast, shrewd fighter Then Choose - Strength 15, Constitution 9, Dexterity 17, Intelligence 13, Wisdom 11, and Charisma 8
Or a Lover, not a fighter? Then Choose - Strength 17, Constitution 8, Dexterity 13, Intelligence 11, Wisdom 9, and Charisma 15
Then have the option in the Advanced Delving Section to assign your Stats from the standard array (or rolling the 4d6 method).
-
Adam and I talked about this a bit before he left on vacation, I think we settled on something that I see as a rule (which makes me happy) but some people will take as advice (which makes those people happy).
Instead of something per class we expanded the character creation step to be this (which a lot of people were already doing, but now it's a rule):
Look over the basic moves and the starting moves for your class. Pick out the move that interests you the most: something you'll be doing a lot, or something that you excel at. Put your 17 in the stat for that move. Look over the list again and pick out the next most important move to your character, maybe something that supports your first choice. Put your 15 in the stat for that move. Repeat this process for your remaining scores: 13, 11, 9, 8.
It gives me that system I wanted where we can point to something in the rules when someone says "but the wizard got more HP than me!" "Well, he said Defending was important to him, you didn't." But it also doesn't block the crazy setups "Yeah, my fighter prefers to talk his way out."
-
Two thumbs up.