Dragonbane

[Jakob]

@DreadDomain Veering a little further off topic, I'd be curious to know what you thing about the 3D20 skill test of DSA5. It's been a part of DSA/TDE since 1988 (2nd Edition), though not from the beginning, and there are kind of two schools of thought about it in Germany: One is that it was a harebrained idea from people who had no clue about game design, but that somehow stuck; the other is that in terms of rules, it's the core of the identity of DSA/TDE and must not be touched, ever.

Of course, both might be true. It's just that it is something that is hated/loved to an extreme degree by the German rpg community. As for myself, I played years with 3D20 skill tests and kind of liked that each skill test had it's own little dramatic arc (Yay, I made Courage - oh no, but I failed Strength by 6 and have only 4 Skill points left!) - but it could get real tiresome as soon as you had to roll a few tests in a row ...

[Mugen]

12 hours ago, Kloster said:

Even not counting magic, 'Rève de dragon' was far more complex than 'L'oeil noir' (Das schwarze Auge auf deutsch). Mugen is right, the only french game that could have competed was 'L'ultime épreuve', but it was not good, filled with bugs, and not very interesting. Even DSA v1.0, level and class based (which L'ultime épreuve wasn't), was better done.

One thing I liked in l'Ultime Épreuve was the short list of skills, which is very close to what I'd chose myself. Without much surprise, it's almost identical to the list of RuneQuest's skill categories.

[Kloster]

13 minutes ago, Mugen said:

One thing I liked in l'Ultime Épreuve was the short list of skills, which is very close to what I'd chose myself. Without much surprise, it's almost identical to the list of RuneQuest's skill categories.

 

Yes, but one of the bugs I spoke earlier is that skill value was the sum or 2 or 3 attributes, depending on the skill, and giving different max values (Ironically, iirc, you could not pass 'l ultime epreuve' because magic skill could not be high enough, being the sum of only 2 attributes).

[DreadDomain]

12 hours ago, Jakob said:

@DreadDomain Veering a little further off topic, I'd be curious to know what you thing about the 3D20 skill test of DSA5. It's been a part of DSA/TDE since 1988 (2nd Edition), though not from the beginning, and there are kind of two schools of thought about it in Germany: One is that it was a harebrained idea from people who had no clue about game design, but that somehow stuck; the other is that in terms of rules, it's the core of the identity of DSA/TDE and must not be touched, ever.

I won't lie, the first time I read it, I thought it felt needlesly bulky and cumbersome. After trying it in play, in real practice, I was hooked. From a design perspective, it neatly ties skills to multiple attributes, more directly and beautifully than RQ does, and makes critical and fumbles work very well using d20s. Another thing that it does is clearly connect your skill training with the potential quality of the result. It is actually quite well thought out.

From a play experience perspective, it's actually very quick to resolve. You throw 3 dice and read them from top left to down right. It is often really quick to see which die (or dice) you need to focus on (as an example, if none of your attributes are lower than 10, you never worry with rolls of 10 or lower). Second... 

12 hours ago, Jakob said:

...and kind of liked that each skill test had it's own little dramatic arc (Yay, I made Courage - oh no, but I failed Strength by 6 and have only 4 Skill points left!) -

Exactly. Each test adds that moment of tension. I cannot quite explain why but that moment you watch the three roll and need to assess if any attributes failed you can be as you describe, a bit dramatic.

12 hours ago, Jakob said:

but it could get real tiresome as soon as you had to roll a few tests in a row ...

I never got to that point but you have clearly played a lot more than I did.

 

Going back to Dragonbane, this thread makes me reread DB and I have three further comments.

First, I which the booklets in the Chaosium starter sets would have the same paper quality, specifically the cover.

Second, the type of adventures is different but the Adventures book reminds me of the gamemaster book in the RQ Gamemaster Set. It offers a somewhat sandboxy environment, with locations, NPCs, encouters and loosely linked adventures. That's a compliment, I love the RQ GM book.

Third, I don't think I ever clued in on this but am i correct to say that irrespective of which kin you choose, you always roll 4d6 drop 1 for the attributes. No bonus or penalties foe anyone? 

[GothmogIV]

Well, we have been playing Dragonbane for several months now, and my players and I really like it. We are playing on Roll20 due to geography and general middle aged guy stuff, and I have been quite pleased with how well supported Dragonbane is on that platform. AND: I can just add spells and monsters from any Chaosium game, like Magic World, Stormbringer, even Call of Cthulhu (not 7e because...someone decided that attributes would be 1-100 instead of 3-18, which is how GOD ORDAINED IT!) 

I love Chaosium, and I have loved Chaosium since I was 14 years old. Runequest looks lovely, but it's just not my jam, so Dragonbane is allowing me to play a Chaosium-style game, supported on a VTT, and compatible with all my stuff.

My heart is full. Sometimes, I weep with joy. 

[Mugen]

10 hours ago, GothmogIV said:

(...) Call of Cthulhu (not 7e because...someone decided that attributes would be 1-100 instead of 3-18, which is how GOD ORDAINED IT!) 

See, this in fact a complex issue for me...

On one hand, I think the use of percentile characteristics in CoC7 was a bad design decision, and not just a matter of taste.

I think using a d20 for everything like in DB is a far better idea in general (even though the way defense and skill oppositions work in DB are a problem for me), but doing so you lose an easy and efficient way to have crit chances that change with your skill level instead of a flat 5%.

Edited March 5 by Mugen

[AndreJarosch]

14 hours ago, GothmogIV said:

even Call of Cthulhu (not 7e because...someone decided that attributes would be 1-100 instead of 3-18, which is how GOD ORDAINED IT!) 

15-90, since the stats are still rolled up using 3D6 (3-18) or 2D6+6 (8-18), and the outcome is then multiplied by 5. 

Edited March 5 by AndreJarosch

[Mugen]

2 hours ago, AndreJarosch said:

3-90, since the stats are still rolled up using 3D6 or 2D6+6, and the outcome is then multiplied by 5. 

Well, 15-90 😉

[Ravenheart87]

On 3/5/2024 at 1:18 AM, GothmogIV said:

(not 7e because...someone decided that attributes would be 1-100 instead of 3-18, which is how GOD ORDAINED IT!) 

Divide them by 5. They are basically the characteristic rolls from other BRP-based games. Converting NPCs from CoC7e is just as a no-brainer as from any other BRP-based game. Monsters on the other hand...

Alas they had to introduce a separate sub-system for monsters, without any guidance for creating or converting them. Its terminology is nebulous (where do NPCs end and monsters begin?), its mechanics are confusing (half the FAQ is about how parrying, blocking, tests, conditions work for monsters), and goes against one of the best features of the BRP family: that every creature is described using the same terminology and follows the same mechanics. Even the simplification of NPC stat blocks backfired, because after the beta feedback they had to introduce a bunch of rules of thumbs for handling untrained skills and attributes for them, which are all over the place in the rulebook...

Make no mistake, I love Dragonbane and I know the rules by heart at this point. But it could have been a cleaner and tighter game if they resisted introducing their Year Zero Engine-isms into the system and leaned closer to the original BRP design principles. But enough ranting, I have a Duck Tower to convert from RuneQuest to Dragonbane...

[Jaeger]

On 11/24/2023 at 12:44 AM, Ravenheart87 said:

I am torn on some of their "frialiganisms" though - especially the monster mechanics and some of the heroic abilities.

 

Their "frialiganisms" are what basically unsold me on Dragonsbane after I took a look at the quickstart rules.

 

 

On 11/25/2023 at 1:28 PM, Jakob said:

I know that it has been stated a dozen times that Chaosium has made the experience that "generic fantasy RPG's don't sell; we need a great and original setting attached to our RPGs", and I absolutely believe them.

 

They keep saying that, but they have yet to put half the effort into a fantasy setting that they have into Glorantha and tune the BRP system to ti.

And no, RQIII's "Mythic Earth" doesn't count...

 

[Mugen]

On 3/6/2024 at 9:14 AM, Ravenheart87 said:

Make no mistake, I love Dragonbane and I know the rules by heart at this point. But it could have been a cleaner and tighter game if they resisted introducing their Year Zero Engine-isms into the system and leaned closer to the original BRP design principles. But enough ranting, I have a Duck Tower to convert from RuneQuest to Dragonbane...

And yet my biggest problem with the system is not linked to these YZEisms, as it's completely possible to defend and attack in the same round in Forbidden Lands.

It's like playing in Pendragon, but you're forced to chose between reckless attack and defensive stance, and the the latter doesn't give you a Shield bonus if you're hit.

Edited March 25 by Mugen

[g33k]

On 3/12/2024 at 7:29 PM, Jaeger said:

... They keep saying that, but they have yet to put half the effort into a fantasy setting that they have into Glorantha and tune the BRP system to ti ...

There's the new Rivers of London, which uses a pretty finely-tuned BRP to fit that setting.  But then, that's not a "generic fantasy" setting, but a specific literary world with an existing body of lore.  Still, the production-values are there, and the "tuning" work has gone into it ... and it's not RQ!

It looks likely that Lords of the Middle Sea will have very high standards & production-values, too.

There is a big hump to get across, to produce an entire new RPG game-world, and then a "tuned" version of BRP (though I'd argue the "generic fantasy" premise shouldn't need much "tuning").  Chaosium's plate is 100% full (arguably over-full) with existing product-lines, I doubt they can undertake such a project at the moment!
 
I think it's a shame that "Magic World" didn't get a 100%-effort push from Chaosium back in the 20'tweens (OTOH, I don't think Chaosium (at the time) was capable of doing the top-tier work they had done in their early days, or are doing today).   I'd love for Chaosium to declare all of the "Magic World" setting/fluff material to be ORC-licensed Open Content, such that one could use BRP:UGE (also ORC-licensed) to publish freely in that setting.

[Ravenheart87]

On 3/25/2024 at 8:47 AM, Mugen said:

And yet my biggest problem with the system is not linked to these YZEisms, as it's completely possible to defend and attack in the same round in Forbidden Lands.

It's like playing in Pendragon, but you're forced to chose between reckless attack and defensive stance, and the the latter doesn't give you a Shield bonus if you're hit.

You can dodge and parry multiple multiple times, it is just gated behind a Heroic Ability and costs WP. It doesn't bother me that actions are limited (it does a quite good job at reducing the whiff factor), though I too prefer multiple parries and dodges with cumulative penalties.

[Mugen]

On 3/26/2024 at 10:58 AM, Ravenheart87 said:

You can dodge and parry multiple multiple times, it is just gated behind a Heroic Ability and costs WP. It doesn't bother me that actions are limited (it does a quite good job at reducing the whiff factor), though I too prefer multiple parries and dodges with cumulative penalties.

Well, if parrying was not a complete waste of action if you failed your roll, I wouldn't mind.

Just like in Pendragon, where you're almost guaranteed to have your Shield bonus if you defend but the attacker has a better roll nonetheless.

[g33k]

5 hours ago, Mugen said:

... you're almost guaranteed to have your Shield bonus if you defend but the attacker has a better roll nonetheless.

This seems OK to me:  the person on the attack is the one "trying to make things happen."
If the active/attacking party was more on-parity with the defender, the whiff-factor would ramp up, and I think combats would tend to drag.

OTOH, I'm a geek... but not not a Pendragon geek (only played a few times); so I may not understand the combat dynamics as well as I think I do.