[Dungeon Crashers] Early Build, Feedback Appreciated
MacLeod:
This project was born due to an interesting Story Games thread starring Eero Tuovinen.
It interested me enough to generate some simple ideas for mechanics. After reading the thread the other night, I immediately wrote a little bit and the following houses the results...
Dungeon Crashers, an early build, google docs edition.
It is unpolished and the formatting is dirt simple. The ideas aren't fleshed out and the document is 4-pages. The character sheet mockup I created is maybe a little bigger than a quarter of a sheet of paper. I am pleased by this.
The following is my To-Do List...
General polish including editing and clarificationFormatting improvementsStatement declaring intention of play styleGM advice for running an off-the-cuff dungeon survival fantasy RPGProper explanation of what Fighting Spirit means to the fictionProper explanation of what a 'scene' is to the gameCombat structure*Character AdvancementEmphasis on improvisation as a strength, extolling the virtues of the Adventurer Profession* Which will just end up being, "Roll for static initiative, take turns, make checks, repeat."
I would really like some feedback. Tell me it is neat, horrible, depressing, a clone of something already in existence or whatever. I like constructive criticism and I would appreciate an explanation that builds upon your comment. Specifically, do you agree with everything on the To-Do List? Any suggestions about items that should go along with the ideas on the To-Do List? Does something need a much better explanation? Do the Abilities seem like they would produce fun for you? Is the equipment system too simple, not rewarding enough, too unrealistic, etc? Are you bothered by a roll under system that expressly uses D8s? How about that Condition system? Is relying on logic of the name alone for narrative/story qualities a bad idea? Any suggestions on Conditions I should "hardcore" into the game? Do you hate the Bad Guy system? If you do or don't, why? Too simple, samey, GM advice about personalization is garbage, etc...?
In any event, thank you for your time!
MacLeod:
I've had some interesting tidbits and points of contention come up in my thread on Praxis and RPG.net.
Turns out that player defined Disciplines aren't the way to go.
The Attribute and Task Resolution system needs some careful clarification text in order to prevent munchkins from a free reign.
The GMing section will need a careful but instructive set of rules, expectations and the like for an Adversarial-style of gaming.
Finally, and perhaps most significantly, is that the Recall action needs some more structure. Sages will still be able to ask questions but with the added capability of inserting advantageous facts into the fiction. Instead of 1 to 8 questions or what-have-you, Sages win (tentatively) Recall points with successful Recall Checks that allow them to either ask a question for 1, insert a minor (+1) advantage to a situation for 2 and a major advantage for an entire scene for 3.
Oh, and I forgot to link to the SG thread this game is based on = Here It Is.
Callan S.:
Hi Matthew,
It's structure seems to be so much so survival fantasy (as you put it) that it's a gamist RPG?
Evaluating it in gamist terms, it seems to have no campaign ending built into it? What's your own experience with playing games with this structure (and yes, I'll grant it's been the traditional structure for 30 years or so)? From my own experience, while the initial battles might be exciting...but then there's another one - then another one - and all seemingly necessary, but without any concrete metric of getting towards an ending. So each battle becomes work - not done because it was fun, but because you 'have to' in a quest towards an indeterminant ending. In other words, a hamster wheel. OR what happens is the battles remain fresh and exciting, but no one really cares about the overall campaigns result.
What's your experience playing under that method?
MacLeod:
Quote from: Callan S. on June 17, 2011, 03:25:06 PM
Hi Matthew,
Hi there, and thanks for responding!
Quote
It's structure seems to be so much so survival fantasy (as you put it) that it's a gamist RPG?
I would say that the rules focus on gaming, yes. I'm one of those folks that doesn't mind it if the rules don't attempt to bolster RP through mechanics. I guess I've lived so long without that kind of structure that it isn't much of an issue.
Quote
Evaluating it in gamist terms, it seems to have no campaign ending built into it? What's your own experience with playing games with this structure (and yes, I'll grant it's been the traditional structure for 30 years or so)? From my own experience, while the initial battles might be exciting...but then there's another one - then another one - and all seemingly necessary, but without any concrete metric of getting towards an ending. So each battle becomes work - not done because it was fun, but because you 'have to' in a quest towards an indeterminant ending. In other words, a hamster wheel.
I hadn't really thought about an ending. Usually in these sorts of games the PCs are either dying too often or the players end up retiring their characters for one reason or another. It is possible that I could go the way of older D&D and introduce ways for the character's to retire in style to a castle, wizard tower, abbey or guild. This would be as easy as writing a small section into GM Advice mentioning a suggested Level to start encouraging retirement.
I see what you mean though. The game supports more than just battles as written due to the emphasis that the Adventurer and Sage place on mechanized problem solving. But it could still get old after a while... Maybe I'm wrong in saying that the GM's responsibility is to keep his player's entertained with RP before and after a dungeon has been completed.
Quote
OR what happens is the battles remain fresh and exciting, but no one really cares about the overall campaigns result.
My question to you is... do the two have to be mutually exclusive? I know I'm not doing the GM any favors with my text when it comes to building a deep narrative his players will never forget... but it fits the style I'm looking for. At least for this game!
It is possible that the game's use should be moderated. As in, every other session instead every single session...
Quote
What's your experience playing under that method?
Before I answer that question specifically I'd like to give a little background on myself...
I don't think my own experience is unique but... I first played AD&D 2e when I was 10 or 11, it was my first RPG experience. After that, I would always be enthralled with the experience but I never had enough money to buy any books. For the next 7 or 8 years I played nothing but my own homebrews. I never wrote structure in those days. Just combat rules tied to an implied setting. We rarely did much dungeon crawling in those days, I'd let my players (usually one-on-one) run about doing mostly RPing until I wanted to break up the monotony of dialogue with some danger. I think this is part of the reason that I have a disconnect when it comes to writing a game that fills in the gaps that happen between the dungeons/battles. I'm so use to doing that myself. =/ At least I can make myself feel okay as I don't plan on selling Dungeon Crashers. =P
I did end up getting involved with a group that played D&D 3.5 almost exclusively (they rejected my attempts at introducing WFRP2e and Starblazer Adventures). Lots of dungeon crawling there and the plots were usually solid enough to get us into different spots to crawl through. Now, I didn't mind the weak plots because the joy of solving the dungeon's problems with swords, words and clever ideas was incredibly entertaining. The mechanics didn't actually support this style of play all that well, unfortunately.
So I'd say that my experiences with that kind of play are somewhat limited and didn't turn out that great. It didn't have anything to do with the structure of play, however, more or less it was the game's mechanics coupled with unimaginative GMs that ruined it for me. I know I love dungeon crawling because I love Roguelikes. :)
Callan S.:
Quote
My question to you is... do the two have to be mutually exclusive?
If they are made mutually exclusive, yes.
Or more to the point, say you actually wanted to make battles and an overall campaign mutually exclusive in terms of interest, how would you design it? For myself, I'd make it that following the conventions of one has no effect on the other.
I think I even have an actual play example - in my groups 3.5 campaign we went quite a few levels from just one off dungeons that I or others in the group made up. Latter at around 10th level, me and a friend decided to make up this cool bloodweaver campaign about this guy invading and...wow, that just didn't take off. I think it actually removed the fun of the one offs, with the insistance of 'this is about our campaign now'. Before that it had a kind of anarchic, impulse of the moment fun.
Quote
So I'd say that my experiences with that kind of play are somewhat limited and didn't turn out that great. It didn't have anything to do with the structure of play, however, more or less it was the game's mechanics coupled with unimaginative GMs that ruined it for me.
Well, how did the unimaginative GM ruin it? Was it perhaps the realisation that this unimaginativeness was going to go on...forever? Game after game after game of this same behaviour? Or if not forever, for as long as the GM deemed it should go on?
What if the campaign was only going to run for 10 sessions, do you think you might have stuck it out instead?
Anyway, for what it's worth, I think I've tried to make smaller combat rules which are intensely exciting - in order to still be exciting after hundreds of sessions. But the fact is, if you do anything for long enough, you get sick of it. No one can design something so awesome it breaks that fact. So if I seem to be harping on about having an ending, fair enough, but you can see why it seems important to me (even if somehow it is not the case I take it to be).
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page