Quote from: Weru;618657Don't want to be too pimpy as I mostly just lurk here, but I've been working on an Anglo-Saxon/Migration Period setting for Swords & Wizardry: Whitebox. It's called Redwald.

Here's the write up for the rune casting rules and the meaning/uses of the runes. I thought I'd posted the write of the class (Dweorgas Wyrdwebba) but I can't seem to find it.

That's an interesting take, and a neat attempt to combine runes with vancian casting; though I really don't know if that's the answer, to do that (I'm certainly not aware of anything that said that vitkis only knew one aett at a time, or that they had to use all the other runes in an aett before using the same rune over).  It might be better to go a different route.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;619064That's an interesting take, and a neat attempt to combine runes with vancian casting; though I really don't know if that's the answer, to do that (I'm certainly not aware of anything that said that vitkis only knew one aett at a time, or that they had to use all the other runes in an aett before using the same rune over).  It might be better to go a different route.

RPGPundit

Hadn't really thought of it as Vancian casting? The free form magic of Maelstrom is the main influence.  Why do think it's Vancian?

The fluff mentions that they know all the Runes, but only have full mastery of one Aett when they start. (Haven't posted the class write up yet but they're exiled apprenctices). So they can use 8 different runes at 1st lvl, 16 at 2nd, and 24 at 3rd (There's only three levels in Redwald). I put the limits on because otherwise Rune casting could easily overpower the game, and the other casters in a party. Plus, I thought it would be better to have them work through all the runes, rather than spam the same few over and over.

EDIT: Like an idiot I linked the same page twice in my original post. The page about the Runes and their meanings is here.

Quote from: TristramEvans;618925Well the DM never rolling dice is simply a choice, but yes, it is 2d6 rather than a d20 or 3d6 or funky dice. The "bonds with other characters" is nothing but a roleplaying aid. It doesn't affect the game mechanically and is easily ignored if you don't want the characters to have any connections, I guess. No pulling a crowbar out of one's ass from my experience.


Have you taken a gander at Red Box Hack?

So, at this point, you're basically trolling, right?

Because first he tells you that he doesn't want a Storygame, he wants D&D, and then you proceed to suggest to him not one but two storygames?

RPGPundit

Quote from: Old One Eye;618968I want to roll my stats, pick a race, pick a class, pick a class ability from a menu of options, while not having much mathy-maths poking its ugly head up, have an integrated Monster Manual, and everything looking pretty damn similar to my AD&D goodness.

The upcoming Arrows of Indra sounds exactly like this (including having special abilities chosen (or rolled) from a list), and has an integrated monster manual; but of course here you'd need to be OK with the theme of the game being not western medieval fantasy but epic indian fantasy. Its actually pretty similar in execution, though; you're still playing the same kind of adventurers.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Weru;619085I put the limits on because otherwise Rune casting could easily overpower the game, and the other casters in a party. Plus, I thought it would be better to have them work through all the runes, rather than spam the same few over and over.

I figured, but what I might have done is some kind of exhaustion mechanic; also, the possibility of negative effects if you fail your check (which we know was a part of rune magick because of that one story of the vitki who goes to visit a sick girl, and discovers that she's been made more sick because some other half-assed vitki improperly applied the Laguz rune to her).

I'd also suggest that rune magick take time, that it shouldn't be a one-round casting sort of thing.

Finally, it seems like you made the whole thing pretty free-form.  I'd have liked it better perhaps if there was a bunch of low-level effects but specific ones you could "learn" as tricks with individual runes, and then higher-level characters could learn how to make much more powerful bindrunes. I used one not long ago to fix the internet!

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;619117I figured, but what I might have done is some kind of exhaustion mechanic; also, the possibility of negative effects if you fail your check (which we know was a part of rune magick because of that one story of the vitki who goes to visit a sick girl, and discovers that she's been made more sick because some other half-assed vitki improperly applied the Laguz rune to her).

The default failure result is loss of the Rune, plus the lost prep time and any in game conseqeunces of the casting failing. There are optional fumbles for each class, but for the rune caster they just extend the length of time the failed rune is lost for. Maybe it would be a good idea if the fumble created more dire problems as you suggest. (I think I do that for the witches curses)

QuoteI'd also suggest that rune magick take time, that it shouldn't be a one-round casting sort of thing.

Well the default for casting is 1 hour in game prep time, but this can be reduced with penalties (+1 to +3). The default for binding and warding is at least four hours, and for inscribing  it's a day (those tow can't be hurried).

QuoteFinally, it seems like you made the whole thing pretty free-form.

Yup, like I said Maelstrom's magic was the main influence. I wanted one of Redwald's caster classes to use free-form and thought the Runes were a good fit. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to have a look.

Quote from: RPGPundit;619111The upcoming Arrows of Indra sounds exactly like this (including having special abilities chosen (or rolled) from a list), and has an integrated monster manual; but of course here you'd need to be OK with the theme of the game being not western medieval fantasy but epic indian fantasy. Its actually pretty similar in execution, though; you're still playing the same kind of adventurers.

RPGPundit

hmmm....interesting.....any chance for a western supplement?

Quote from: Old One Eye;619349hmmm....interesting.....any chance for a western supplement?

There's no current plan for that, but you never know.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Old One Eye;618968I want to roll my stats, pick a race, pick a class, pick a class ability from a menu of options, while not having much mathy-maths poking its ugly head up, have an integrated Monster Manual, and everything looking pretty damn similar to my AD&D goodness.

Menu of options? I believe those are called feats. Had a lot of fun playing 3.5, which you know the kids call pathfinder now a days. But I digress.

Quote from: Ronin;619670Menu of options? I believe those are called feats. Had a lot of fun playing 3.5, which you know the kids call pathfinder now a days. But I digress.

There are ways to do "menu of options" that don't end up working like 3.x feats (a dumb way of doing this, IMO).

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;619109So, at this point, you're basically trolling, right?

Because first he tells you that he doesn't want a Storygame, he wants D&D, and then you proceed to suggest to him not one but two storygames?

No, I recommended two RPGs very closely modeled on basic D&D that included elements the poster was asking for. You calling a game a storygame without anything to back it up isn't enough to make it so, just like any RPg using the terminology "story" as an analogy for something in play doesn't make it a storygame.

Quote from: TristramEvans;619921No, I recommended two RPGs very closely modeled on basic D&D that included elements the poster was asking for. You calling a game a storygame without anything to back it up isn't enough to make it so, just like any RPg using the terminology "story" as an analogy for something in play doesn't make it a storygame.

In recent days considerable "backing up" has happened to explain exactly why DW is a storygame, and red box hack is likewise and it'd be easy to do the same. Of course you know that, and you really are just trolling, so go fuck yourself.

RPGPundit

Quote from: TristramEvans;619921No, I recommended two RPGs very closely modeled on basic D&D that included elements the poster was asking for. You calling a game a storygame without anything to back it up isn't enough to make it so, just like any RPg using the terminology "story" as an analogy for something in play doesn't make it a storygame.

I just hope that you stop running your mouth perceiving some slight against your buddy running his most-probably-houseruled DW game and you actually enjoying it to check out the actual Dungeon World material to come to your own conclusion. After all, you readily admitted this very well might be the case on that other thread there:

Quote from: TristramEvans;620005There's a chance, but I'm not certain, as he talked about taking a while to "grok" how the system is supposed to work. But I'm going to read the online game myself before coming to a conclusion.

So, I get it, you played something that was not so far from what you constitute as D&D, and don't consider having played a story game, but that doesn't mean Dungeon World isn't actually such a game, or at least a game involving quite a few authorial-types mechanics, or "moves", which basically indicate it construes the actual game play as an exercise in story-building. Check it out for yourself. Then maybe we'll have an actual exchange that is substantive, instead of just throwing suspicion at each other because we are "just being mean" and shit.