Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - nemomeme

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7
Dungeon World / Re: Crits and Fumbles
« on: November 15, 2012, 08:33:00 PM »
Critical misses and hits are one of the best things in almost any d20 game and particularly in DCC.

I'm a big fan of any mechanic that focuses attention when it's not "your turn".  It's great in boardgames and it's even better in RPGs.

Definitely stealing some ideas here.

Dungeon World / Re: Steading Feudalism
« on: November 05, 2012, 08:15:54 PM »
I see. Just because Osterfell is protected by Valmark doesn't necessarily mean than it's a problem for Valmark. That makes sense. 

It's also likely protected by a City itself and can up its defenses that way.

I agree that it could make for some interesting front fodder.

I think I was just tired.  Thanks, noofy.

Dungeon World / Steading Feudalism
« on: November 04, 2012, 11:12:05 PM »
Maybe I'm just tired but...

I'm doing campaign prep after the first session of my first "ongoing" DW game (The Nordemark). The map started with a single Steading, the village Osterfell. I've determined it's a part of a Norse/Celtic-style "kingdom" with Jarls and High Jarls, etc.

Via the Oath tag its Defenses are bumped from the default Militia to a Watch. Its Oath is to the nearby Town of Valmark.

We haven't seen it in play yet, but I'm now putting Valmark on the campaign map and creating the skeleton of its stats. I know it's a Town that helps to protect the village of Osterfell. So I apply its -Defenses and its default Defenses of Watch slips to Militia.

The Town of Valmark now has lower Defenses than the Village of Osterfell.

This seems wrong...

Dungeon World / Re: Monsters - I am confused
« on: June 18, 2012, 05:59:06 PM »
Maybe so.  Some of them are very good at spending hours creating death engine PCs in 4E or 3.X and then letting them go like tops to wreak holy havoc in those systems' dungeons.  Kind of like Car Wars or something...
I think there are some communications and personal issues involved on both sides of the table in my case; I've tried to be careful not to indict DW's procedures.
I need to set up a regular DW campaign with some people I know will enjoy the game.  It's not like Portland isn't teeming with gamers like that.
Leaving those things aside, what do people think about big bad solitary monsters opening with moves that give -1 or -2 ongoing to PCs and then PCs having to defy danger to shake the effects of those moves kind of like a sort of saving throw mechanic?  Has anyone used something like that to the good?

Dungeon World / Re: I wish we just had modifiers, not scores
« on: June 18, 2012, 01:12:22 PM »
Resolved: create a horror/sanity mechanic that eats away at WIS points in much the same way damage degredates CON (hit points).

Also, create a magical war hammer that requires an STR of 17 to wield.

I hear you guys but I look at the ability scores and see as much opportunity as homage...  :)

Dungeon World / Dungeon World Scantheon
« on: June 17, 2012, 10:34:42 PM »
You're playing in a Skyrim-inspired Dungeon World campaign world.

Do you prefer a "real-world" Norse gods pantheon or "inspired by" names that, while vaguely Scandinavian are different?  "Real world" Norse gods would inevitably be getting a fantasy world twist so only the names and general areas of concern would remain, so to speak.


Recall the traditions of Deities and Demigods and the mishmash glory of the Judges Guild's Wilderlands before you answer.  :)

Dungeon World / Re: Number Appearing brainstorm
« on: June 17, 2012, 02:12:19 PM »
I like that Mountain Spawn idea, Brad.

I am messing around with giants and trolls a lot lately, reading Scandinavian mythology.

Dungeon World / Re: Monsters - I am confused
« on: June 17, 2012, 02:09:54 PM »
Thanks for the responses so far.

I guess the core of my query is whether, fiction aside, the main thing players can do on offense against a low-hit point legend is a number of actions that defy danger and whether that's how others approach these kind of fights.  Like, the fight is going on and as GM you're thinking, "these guys are getting ripped to shreds but they're not running.  They've got a pretty good idea though and they've successfully defied danger once towards implementing it.  Given the nature of this beast in this environment how many more times should they have to defy danger to beat it?"  I'm not asking for a number - clearly that will vary with the fiction!  I'm asking whether that's the terms you think in and how/if you convey that to the players: "Oh, you're so close!  If you can just do X then you'll have won!"

I'm finding that for some of the people I want to play Dungeon World with it is just not working for them at least in the way I'm implementing it.  If I'm not allowing an "attack roll" then clearly I am being a dick and/or the game is dumb.  I just won't play this game with those people.  Or, more likely, I'll try one more time and it won't go particularly well.  Trouble is, in my circles a lot of the people who "get" Dungeon World have their schedules filled up with things like Fiasco and Montsegur.  My dungeon-delving pals aren't always comfortable with the nu skool AND have also never had any exposure to old skool "fiat" and it can seem harsh to them.

It is really hard for some people to break out of their thinking habits in gaming. I can provide perfectly detailed Lore or Discernment that feels so spoon-fed that I'm cringing at how out-of-fiction meta I've gone, there can be a environmental feature that can solve their dilemma with just the tiniest bit of creative thinking, and they'll still go back to Hack and Slash (and go down swinging).  Besides old dogs and new tricks, I think there's something I'm not doing right/well about how I present the game and its Moves (see other threads on providing/not providing Move sheets).

I hadn't read/recalled the specific text for Messy.  That seems pretty clear.  Though many players don't think things like that happening to NPCs mean it can happen to them.  That brings up then how DMs are planning to handle all the de-limbed adventurers running around given there are 15 monsters in the core rules with the Messy tag.  Most players I know would rather have their characters be dead than de-limbed.  Does a permanent debility cover it or is that not enough probably?  "Sorry, Sir Gwaine, you've been savaged by cave rats.  I'm afraid your adventuring days are through."  :)

There's a custom move at the beginning of the Advanced Fuckery chapter of Apocalypse World that's Called things are tough.  Vincent really runs it down as a move, but I'm thinking of employing something like it for Dungeon World.

Monsters don't have levels and I don't want to have to assign levels to them.  I think that along with no hit point inflation were good design decisions for Dungeon World.  But wanting another lever besides the-amount-of-defy-danger-a-PC-has-to-do-to-get-to-an-effective-attack, I'm thinking of something like this:

a foe like none before: If the GM determines that a monster is more challenging than any the character has ever overcome, the player takes -1 to any roll in opposition to that monster.  Assign a number one or two higher than the character's current level to that monster.  When the character reaches that level, that monster will no longer have the a foe like none before tag.

That's a rough cut.  I would likely play around with a -2 & -1 progression, (as things are tough).  This would do a few things for me.

1) The level progression in DW is pretty flat.  Characters get broader, more flexible and more interesting.  They'll likely have some cool items as they level too.  But there isn't great a difference in power between a 4th level character and a 10th level character relative to most D&D rulesets.  I actually like this a lot.  I'm going to make people start over at first level if and when their characters die and they'll still be able to contribute effectively to the party.  But I can introduce a little more sense of progression with this rule.  That lower level character that is almost as mechanically effective against that 16 hit point dragon as that higher level character?  Things are going to be tougher for him because he's never faced a foe like this before.

2)  For the people who insist on not being so creative with how they approach situations?  I can still let them try.  It's just going to be tougher for them.  "You're first level?  This white dragon has you pissing in your boots.  Try whatever you like, but take -2 ongoing against it."  I don't agree myself with their thinking but to them, "yes but -2" seems a lot less dick-ish than "no, that move on your sheet just doesn't work in this situation (and here's why)."

3) I can introduce terrible foes in a sandbox world early and if the PCs want to go after them they can, even if they can't divine exactly how to handle the thing.  They can face it, discover it is a foe like none before, learn a few things, run away and then try again when they've had more experience and gained a couple levels.  More of that sense of progression thing.  And I can do it without all the level setting micromanagement prep.

I understand this wont' be for everyone.  I am going to try it as another control lever along with amount-of-defy-danger given that hit point flattening sort of takes one lever away.

The Regiment has messed around with some situation levers like its Supressed condition and its Force Parity matrix.  I may look at and think about those some more for a possible application to Dungeon World house rules to give my "16 hit-point dragons" some more mechanical teeth.

Dungeon World / Re: Monsters - I am confused
« on: June 16, 2012, 07:15:24 PM »
I've been stating up some legendary "solo" monsters for a DW scenario I am working on, thinking about this topic and about stras' great post some more.

That led me to re-read the "Vector" section of the Technoir RPG.  I won't quote any of it here, but for those of you who own that game it may be worth reading through that section and letting some of those thoughts on doing "logic checks" for what makes sense fictionally color the way you present your fiction as an GM for Dungeon World.  I had some stumbling blocks the four times I ran Technoir but it has some great writing about thinking about game fiction and state changes within that fiction. (Its Transmissions influence the way I prep for DW and other games as well)

I think I understand pretty well how to portray the world in such a way that would make a fight with a dragon substantially different fictionally from a battle with a legendary veteran in magical plate mail even if they both have 16 hit points.

I think the mechanical differences come down mostly to one thing.  (I'm posting this here in a scattered "thinking out loud" mode because I haven't thought through it carefully and because I want to hear from others what some other mechanical differences might be between two such fights)

Assuming the characters even have the capability to vanquish a given foe, I think it comes down mechanically to how often a character has to defy danger in order to get into a fictional position where a damage-dealing move (H&S or other) has the possibility to be made/rolled.  In a play-to-find-out mode I'd be more inclined to have every conflict be theoretically winnable rather than to have decided beforehand, for example, that a given foe can only be harmed by magical weapons and if the characters don't have them then nothing they do is going to shave any of those 16 HP off.  (Wondering whether others agree even with this stance for this game - maybe your prep tells you otherwise and the PCs need to Discern or Lore their way to the solution and come back another day because this fight this day is utter suicide).

If my amount-of-defy-danger assumption is roughly correct, I wonder what cues the game has or wants to be able to translate this to MCs.  Are there tags that convey it?  Or is a name like "Dragon" enough?  As an aside while thinking about tags I'm wondering whether others would translate the messy tag as tacit permission to de-limb PCs as a part of a foe's attack?

After chewing on this and running some more DW, a found myself in a session where two of the players were a little frustrated with a situation where I was indicating H&S was not a viable move in the current circumstance.  They'd been able to use that move in all combats previously and now they were dealing with a foe that was too fast, intelligent and ferocious to be cut down by trying to simply step up to it and hit it with an axe.  I had some ideas about how such a foe might be harmed but 1) The thoughts weren't fully formed/prepped (I didn't expect them to come after this thing after describing what it had done to an armed camp!) and 2) I didn't want to lead them by the nose.

All of this to say that with some players I think I'm going to need to run DW a bit differently than I might prefer.  I don't really want to add hitpoints to monsters, so I'm thinking about some other possibilities and house rules that make "low hitpoint" legendary and scary monsters work better for me.  I'm finding that if a DW party focuses on damage, they can really lay it on starting at 2nd level - there's a big difference between 1st and 2nd level in the amount they can do if they're permitted to go straight to their damaging moves in any given conflict.

More later.  I've rambled enough.

Dungeon World / Re: Appendix: 100 Dungeon Descriptors
« on: June 12, 2012, 08:17:26 PM »
Nice resources.  Thanks!

Dungeon World / Re: Very small tweaks on stat scores
« on: June 02, 2012, 02:07:52 PM »
Love it. 

It provides a gratifying sense of progression slightly more often than the current system.

It feels right to me to get a stat bonus at level 10.

It also delays by *at least* one level (from 3rd to 4th) the uber +3-in-the-primary-ability power-up tier which I prefer for personal, mostly grognard-y reasons.

I say *at least* because at a player's first level-up there will be a strong temptation (and an interesting choice) to improve their 15 score to 16 to have a second +2 mod rather than raise their primary stat to 17 for the same bonus they had previously.

Dungeon World / Re: Damage Sources and Armor
« on: March 28, 2012, 09:01:10 PM »
Simple then.

DW not in front of me but it's probably perfectly clear in the text - just multiple D&D edition brain damage causing assumptions.

Thanks, Sage.

Dungeon World / Damage Sources and Armor
« on: March 27, 2012, 09:07:30 PM »
Dual weapons, animal companions, hirelings, etc.

Maybe it's made clear somewhere and I just missed it.  Or maybe it's up to the GM.  How are people running them with respect to Armor? 

Do you apply Armor as a defense to multiple sources twice or once?

Dungeon World / Re: Dungeon World is...
« on: March 09, 2012, 10:37:45 PM »
I thought this thread might garner some interest.

I just popped back in mostly to thank Sage for his answers and to say that I am looking forward to Beta 2. 

The "definitely not OSR" comment was interesting to me.  Two of my friends that read DW assumed it was that without my indicating it might be.  Probably just because there's a lot of OSR out there right now...  Or maybe OSR has now become synonymous with "D&D clone." 

One of them ran it last weekend.  They had a blast but the party got TPK'd.  He commented that one reason he loved it was how "hardcore," "old skool" and "gritty" it was.  I offered that was not necessarily the direction the designers had for it but was glad they enjoyed it.

I think the "half damage" option that is forthcoming may help me with my own personal tightropes with the game.  If nothing else it will add another signal layer to the fiction.  1) "Okay, now you're in a spot and I'm narrating how this guy is going to fuck up your world."  2) "Okay, here's the monster making a Move and incidently doing half damage to you."  3) "You missed again?  Well, fuck.  Here's what happens and you're taking full damage now.  More than your hit points?  Can't say you didn't see it coming...."

I'll be running Dungeon World at Gamestorm on the 24th.  The game filled within a couple hours after I posted it so there's clearly a lot of enthusiasm for the game.  :)

Dungeon World / Re: Make Camp
« on: March 09, 2012, 10:09:54 PM »
While you're looking at this, consider the possibility that there's a generic set of outcomes and then options that only open up when there's a Ranger around - something beyond the A SAFE PLACE move.  Maybe even something built into the class that they don't need to spend a move on.

I don't know that it should go in that direction, just spit-balling.

Making camp, setting watches, etc. - such a classic mainstay of this kind of gaming.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7