|
Babe Magnet posted:Gnome7 inspired me to try and create a new playbook layout for the supplement I'm working on. I like what you're doing here, but the bit explaining how to assign your scores looks really busy on account of the font you chose: you've got a lot going on there on account of white text with a black shading on top of twin black bars. I think a simple black bar with plain white text would be the way to go there. Overall it looks really great though.  Fake edit: The more I look at it though the clearer it is, so take this with a grain of salt.
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 09:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 21:53 |
|
|
The solution I used when I was creating a steampunk game was to create a big distinction between what magic could do and what tech could do. Specifically, magic was very focused on the individual: it was always short-range, always required the caster to be present, and always dependent on the caster's skill. So technology still had a monopoly on the things that made industrialisation a big deal in the real world: you needed technology for mass transit, automation or long-distance communication.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 09:42
|
|
|
Babe Magnet posted:Gnome7 inspired me to try and create a new playbook layout for the supplement I'm working on. I'm finding my eyes sliding over the body of the move text. I'm not sure such a blocky, bold font works when everything else is so blocky. The sheet feels really cramped to me, in general.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 13:29
|
|
|
Yeah, looking at it after a bit of rest, I could probably get away with lowering the size of the stat block a little, which will give me some more space. That'll help it look less cluttered. Thanks for the feedback!
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 14:09
|
|
|
Babe Magnet posted:Gnome7 inspired me to try and create a new playbook layout for the supplement I'm working on. Not to be a dick but this isn't a new layout at all. It's the standard DW playbook layout with a font swap.  Also, I wouldn't use the same font for the move names and move text, it makes the sheet a lot harder to read.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 16:11
|
|
|
Uh, actually, if you'll notice, the playbook name is at the top instead of the bottom and there's a "Race" box and furthermore, E: also that's just the first page out of like, 3. Babe Magnet fucked around with this message at 20:02 on Sep 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 10:28
|
|
|
You have an erroneous 'put' in the Ultimate Power agenda. Otherwise it looks really neat!
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 13:09
|
|
|
So how soon will the Fellowship be available for my purchasing or downloading? Because this teasing is killing me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 14:32
|
|
|
I did like the guy on G+ who was saying that Vincent Baker might be interested in this tri-fold playbook style.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 15:26
|
|
|
I very, very, very much like this presentation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
Green Intern posted:You have an erroneous 'put' in the Ultimate Power agenda. Otherwise it looks really neat! I also typo'd "to" in the GM Playbook section, hooray for doing work at 3am. RSIxidor posted:So how soon will the Fellowship be available for my purchasing or downloading? I'm planning October, but honestly playtesting feedback my push it back. I'm also waiting on a little bit of art still, so it could be delayed by that. Evil Mastermind posted:I did like the guy on G+ who was saying that Vincent Baker might be interested in this tri-fold playbook style. I liked the guy who wanted the source files and permission to make Fellowship in French for free.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
gnome7 posted:I liked the guy who wanted the source files and permission to make Fellowship in French for free. He's the guy who did the French translation of the DW Guide, actually.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
So my players are nearing level 10, and I've been talking to them about what happens then. Basically, their options are 'pick a new playbook, pick a compendium class, or just accept that you're done levelling up' - none of which really seem to satisfy them. I could just let them keep picking moves off of the lists on their playbooks, but that (to me) removes one of the fun parts of DW levelling: having to actually decide how their character is going to evolve based on what additional stuff they do or do not unlock - for example, a Mage who chooses 'Enchanter', but never takes 'Ritualist', is going to be a very different type of Mage than one who makes the opposite choices. So I looked back at the source material that inspired DW in the first place. I'm pondering writing up some 'advanced' classes for them, based on the parts from original D&D where the PCs go from being intinerant murderhobos to being lords of their own keeps/hierophants of their own temples/wizards in their own remote towers. Accordingly, I have some basic moves nailed down: Found A Temple When you build a temple settlement, roll+Wis. On a 10+, choose 3. On a 7-9, choose 2. On a 6-, choose 1. - You attract many worshippers - You attract particularly skilled worshippers - You attract famous individuals to settle there - Your location is easily secured and defensible - Your deity gives a valuable token or artifact to your temple The reason for the 6- not being a proper 'failure' is that I feel that in this case, failure shouldn't outright prevent the move from happening; if they've bothered to assemble the resources and so forth, they deserve to get it, just with less of a starting 'boost' than they would had they rolled well. (And of course, with a 6- I can still make as hard a move as I like against their new settlement.) Build a Keep When you build a keep in the wilderness, roll+Str. On a 10+, pick 3. On a 7-9, pick 2. On a 6-, pick 1. - Your keep draws in many loyal retainers. - The locals swear to your service willingly. - Your keep draws famous heroes. - Your keep is easily secured and defensible. - Your keep is situated on or near some important resource. - The nearby kingdoms are friendly and amenable to your presence. As above, but I've altered the parameters for the Keep slightly, to reflect that this is a secular institution (and not, more than likely, an outgrowth of an existing organization; unlike a temple, there's no particular reason those likely to choose this option should be connected to an existing secular authority, though they certainly could be if they wanted.) I'm thinking that further moves would likely involve controlling or manipulating their followers, in between their own jaunts into increasingly dangerous locations - after all, no need to postpone your trip to the Frozen Hells of Lethargis to clear out that gnoll den when you have an order of knights in your keep that could easily do it for you! In essence, everyone gets to be a uniquely-flavored Hardholder as their Level 11+.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 05:47
|
|
|
Hello, Pretty new to SA, but I've been semi-active on the DW group on G+ for a while. About a month ago I started to put together a playbook based on the Avatar cartoon series. The idea is to present an option for a character who adequately fits into specific niches based upon the level up choices made and that can provide a good amount of terrain mobility. It has gone through a huge number of rewrites, and I've been looking for some advice and feedback on it, to see if I'm barking up the wrong tree on some of these moves and they way they interact. I didn't get too much in the way of feedback on the G+ forums, and I was hoping to get some so I could decrease this thing's level of suck. One aspect in particular giving me trouble is the "Advanced Elemental Nature" move, which I am thinking about replacing with one or two other moves I've written up. I'm not terribly familiar with posting/linking images, so I hope dropping the Google drive link into this is sufficient. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzuG4my2HZ_fb1NzX0ljVU9ZckE/edit?usp=sharing Thanks all, -Z
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
Zagglenack posted:Hello, I remember seeing someone posting this on 4chan. It looked pretty interesting, but I haven't looked at it in depth.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
Fellowship playbook packets just went out, check your PMs or emails, however I sent you that stuff to begin with if you're part of the playtest. If you are not part of the playtest, here, have some spoilers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
gnome7 posted:Fellowship playbook packets just went out, check your PMs or emails, however I sent you that stuff to begin with if you're part of the playtest. I'm honestly not much a fan of LotR flavor, but I do love how everything ties together with these.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 07:02
|
|
|
So out of curiosity, how do people feel about changing playbooks slightly depending on what a player wants. Say someone picks the golem because they want to be a robot and they want to be a floating kind of robot, would it hurt to let them take a general multiclass move to get the skydancer's flying?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 15:28
|
|
|
djw175 posted:So out of curiosity, how do people feel about changing playbooks slightly depending on what a player wants. This is what you're supposed to do in the first place. (As long as there isn't a Skydancer in play whose niche you would then intrude on.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 15:41
|
|
|
Lemon Curdistan posted:This is what you're supposed to do in the first place. Specifically the issue is that Golem has no general multiclass move until the level 6-10 range.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 15:46
|
|
|
djw175 posted:Specifically the issue is that Golem has no general multiclass move until the level 6-10 range. Depending on factors, like how powerful the move is, I'd let them either replace a starting move, or use that one flying move as their Race/Background. If they really want flying from day one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 15:57
|
|
|
I always let players replace some of their starting moves if it doesn't fit what they want to do. I also let everybody take as many multiclass moves as they want as long as they aren't stepping on anyone's toes. In my experience, players still usually stay mostly in their main class, but some of the more imaginative players have made really fun characters this way. Andrast fucked around with this message at 16:32 on Sep 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 16:26
|
|
|
Andrast posted:I always let players replace some of their starting moves if it doesn't fit what they want to do. I also let everybody take as many multiclass moves as they want as long as they aren't stepping on anyone's toes. This exactly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 16:30
|
|
|
Holy poo poo the Barbarian is just So Much Fun to play. Dungeon World actually makes GORM THE GLORIOUS feel like he can credibly smash down doors, roar GORM IS COMING and then just kill every motherfucker in the room.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 09:40
|
|
|
I finally got my Dungeon World campaign off the ground, and it is glorious. We're doing something that steals lots of aesthetics and ideas from Treasure Planet and Spelljammer, possibly by way of Firefly, with star-ship rules adapted from Inverse World's airship rules, and it's fun as hell. At the start of the first session I had the players decide among themselves who has what role on their star-ship. The Survivor is the captain, the Dashing Hero is the first mate, the Fae is the first mate's first mate (because a Dashing Hero needs her very own, you understand), the fire-elemental Channeler is the cook, the Artificer is the engineer, and the Masked Mage is the pilot because why not. I also had them name their ship and describe it. It looks like, to quote my notes, "a bitchin' pirate ship" and it is, in fact, a model BPS-13 bitchin' pirate ship that uses etheric sails to soar among the stars on the Etherstream. It's called "The Best (Ship in the Galaxy)" and the group decided their job with it is "pest control" (pests may include such things as small insects, large monsters, fugitive murderers, and/or space dragons). I'm so proud of my group for all of the above. Only two of them have ever played a tabletop RPG before and they all got into it so well. gnome7 posted:Fellowship playbook packets just went out, check your PMs or emails, however I sent you that stuff to begin with if you're part of the playtest. I love the changes to Last Breath when it comes to dying in the presence of the Overlord. That's pretty excellent.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 14:53
|
|
|
I hear that DW actually encourages DMs to not spend too much time preparing a campaign. Is this really true?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
Radio Talmudist posted:I hear that DW actually encourages DMs to not spend too much time preparing a campaign. Is this really true? From my limited experience of the game, you don't want to design every aspect of a campaign because that robs players of the opportunity to do some of that too. "Bob, your character hates Baron Evil because his men-at-arms kicked your dog" isn't as good as "Bob, why does your character hate Baron Evil?" is what I mean. Of course, this doesn't mean you show up to DM a game empty-handed, far from it. But you shouldn't design every last detail, let the players do some of the heavy lifting and they'll be more invested.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
When I'm preparing for a session I'll generally construct several encounters and I won't necessarily know what I'm going to do with them, but I'll have them available so I can drop them in places I need them. A couple combat things, some characters, some situations, and let them sit to be used in case I need something. I take a rather modular approach to DMing, personally. I'm kinda poo poo at fronts tho. 100 HOGS AGREE fucked around with this message at 19:24 on Sep 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
Radio Talmudist posted:I hear that DW actually encourages DMs to not spend too much time preparing a campaign. Is this really true? Specifically, Dungeon World encourages you, as the GM, not to prepare very much beyond an initial situation for the first session. All you strictly need is, say, "Okay, adventurers. You're now standing in front of the dungeon. <Character name>, what's the terrain like around here?" Then wait for a response, take notes, nod. Then, "<Character name 2>, what brings your group to this dangerous place? What are you looking for?" Take notes, etc. "<Character name 3>, you've heard this place is even more dangerous than it looks. Tell me what you're prepared to face within." In short, you're letting the players design your first session for you, while also getting them to tell you what kind of a campaign they'd like to come out of it. I went in with a little more planning than that, myself, but looking at my notes for yesterday's session, they're mostly situation-specific questions to ask the players, rather than any sort of step-by-step scenario planning. The starting situation for this campaign had everyone waking up imprisoned in a famous Prison-Moon and figuring out, through questions I asked them, how they got there, what they were afraid of finding in prison, and how they were planning on getting their (fantasy) star-ship back and getting out of there. The rest of the session was pretty much generated from what they told me, and the way the session ended has them on a pretty clear trajectory for what they plan on doing for the next few sessions. After the first session, you have what you need to start making what Dungeon World calls "adventure fronts" and "campaign fronts," which are basically ways of planning out adventures and campaigns that take into account the GM's principle of "draw maps, leave blanks" and "think off-screen, too."
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
DW is also really easy to make encounters up on the fly with, too. Monsters are just HP, damage die, a need, and one or two special moves. It's really easy to eyeball, say, a goblin. "Probably can be taken out in one hit, d4 damage, this one has a spear, this one has a bow." Mechanically, you could fully stat out a monster, but it's more exciting just to go, "Oh, you did full damage to it? Yeah, that killed him right dead" rather than drag out a fight.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
Radio Talmudist posted:I hear that DW actually encourages DMs to not spend too much time preparing a campaign. Is this really true? Yes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
gnome7 posted:Fellowship playbook packets just went out, check your PMs or emails, however I sent you that stuff to begin with if you're part of the playtest. I wonder if someone will do The Expedition, where it's only encouraged to have a single wizard or burglar, but definitely needs thirteen dwarves?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
Radio Talmudist posted:I hear that DW actually encourages DMs to not spend too much time preparing a campaign. Is this really true? DW is based on Apocalypse World, so here's the advice from Apocalypse World on the subject: quote:Everything you say, you should do it to accomplish these three, and no other. It’s not, for instance, your agenda to make the players lose, or to deny them what they want, or to punish them, or to control them, or to get them through your pre-planned storyline (DO NOT pre-plan a storyline, and I’m not loving around). So, yes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
On the subject of "seriously, don't loving pre-plan a story," I'm almost worried about how cooperative my characters are, or how eager they seem to be to chase after the villainous NPC I introduced at the end of the first session. She did some pretty crazy poo poo and ran off with some of their stuff, so the Dashing Hero is eager to take her out (because it's the heroic thing to do) while the Survivor really wants the memento she stole from his stuff in the impound back. Everyone else is on the same ship and seems perfectly happy to follow what the captain and first mate want to do. In short, I'm afraid I might've made it too obvious, too soon, that this particular NPC is a serious danger who probably needs to be stopped at some point and cut off any chance that they might have a more interesting idea. Then again, all but two players are brand-spankin'-new to roleplaying, so maybe having a little direction at first isn't terrible. I'm not really sure.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 22:18
|
|
|
Harrow posted:On the subject of "seriously, don't loving pre-plan a story," I'm almost worried about how cooperative my characters are, or how eager they seem to be to chase after the villainous NPC I introduced at the end of the first session. She did some pretty crazy poo poo and ran off with some of their stuff, so the Dashing Hero is eager to take her out (because it's the heroic thing to do) while the Survivor really wants the memento she stole from his stuff in the impound back. Everyone else is on the same ship and seems perfectly happy to follow what the captain and first mate want to do. In your case, you can establish fronts so that the PCs are aware of other forces in the world aside from the most direct threat. If you give them clues and indicators (Show signs of approaching doom) that there is some poo poo going down that does not have a direct relation to the big bad (or does it? play to find out what happens) then you can seed the game with ideas that get more dangerous when they pass through your players' heads. Similarly, if they want to bite on the meatiest (and first) hook that you gave them, there shouldn't be anything wrong with that. You can develop that front with them and then you can insert a twist like that villainous NPC was working for a higher power, or was an ally in disguise that had to go to desperate measures to accomplish their agenda, and so on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
Have them step on toes of bigger, dangerous foes on their way to stop this villain of the week. No way a bunch of traveling adventurers aren't going to catch the attention of someone who really, really wants their services, or really, really wants them dead.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
So yeah, awhile back I posted up a rough draft of a mage-like class I've been working on. Since then, I've been working on a whole mess of things that could charitably be called a hack, so I figured I might drop this preview on y'all. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 11:43
|
|
|
aldantefax posted:Similarly, if they want to bite on the meatiest (and first) hook that you gave them, there shouldn't be anything wrong with that. You can develop that front with them and then you can insert a twist like that villainous NPC was working for a higher power, or was an ally in disguise that had to go to desperate measures to accomplish their agenda, and so on. What if robbing the PCs was only a sideline for him, and his main job had been couriering a magical artefact to one of the setting's big bads? The PCs now have the One Ring, congratulations.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 12:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 21:53 |
|
|
aldantefax posted:Similarly, if they want to bite on the meatiest (and first) hook that you gave them, there shouldn't be anything wrong with that. You can develop that front with them and then you can insert a twist like that villainous NPC was working for a higher power, or was an ally in disguise that had to go to desperate measures to accomplish their agenda, and so on. I do like the villain-accomplishing-a-potentially-good-goal twist. She's definitely doing what she's doing for a "good" end goal already, but if it's appropriate I can definitely change up her motivations to keep the adventure more interesting. Right now she's using powerful time magic to erase people from history who had a hand in destroying her home city in a recent galactic war, hoping that she can tear causality in half and undo her home's destruction. In the process, she's... tearing causality in half, and causing anything those same people protected or built to suddenly be destroyed or blink out of existence. She stole the PCs' mementos because she can use the memories attached to them to power her time-twisting magics. You have a really good point, though, and I'm absolutely going to be flexible about her goals/motivations depending on what the PCs do and what the PCs' goals end up being.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 14:29
|
|