After all this time, I know some of you are skeptical on if Donjon's going to get done. I have, in fact, just laid out the first four chapters, albeit without art.
In celebration, I show you Chapter 2: Character Creation. The layout may change a bit, and art will be added, but feast your eyes, and feel free to comment:
http://www.anvilwerks.com/rpg/donjon_ch2.pdf (131K PDF)
If you're going to open this file more than 2 or 3 times, download it. It's easier on my bandwidth.
This is a first-five-seconds question, but what is the name of the heading font you use? It looks very cool, and somehow makes me think "neo-retro fantasy rpg"
You'll recognize that font from the movie "The Dark Crystal," one of my favorite movies. Incidentally, it's called Dark Crystal.
Bonus question: what movie is the Paladin heading font stolen from?
- Clinton
Completely off the cuff commentary:
1) Seriousness level dial. Love it. Will there be a GM tips chapter or the equivelent where more info is provided for these similiar to Jared's OctaNe volume dial?
2) You may want to define "median" for the mathematically ignorant readers.
3) Human and other races dial: how about mentioning a dial setting that allows ALL races to be played as having a plethora of classes. I may want Human Knights and Goblin Pumpkin Bombers both. Wouldn't be "standard", but hey thats what a dial is for, right?
4) I recall (and recommend including if this was changed) rules for starting characters at higher than first. The line under level should cross reference the page where those rules can be found. Alternatively i think a Dial: Starting with Higher Level Characters text box would be great there.
5) Please reconcider changing the saves to Save vs Mind and Save vs Body. I just can't say Transmogrify with a straight face. Alternatively...hey, here's an idea...in the section mentioned in #1 where you list differences for the serious dial...perhaps you could include a different set of names for attributes for the different dials. Transmogrification is great for a tongue in cheek / Monty game. And I bet you could come up with more vicious sounding stats than adroitness and wherewithal for a blood and rust setting.
6) personal style note: I'd mention ending a page with a heading (like "Abilities") but I imagine this is just due to art not being positioned yet.
7) In the examples of Main vs supporting abilities...you may want to specifically note that a) abilities can be special traits or skills, and b) that the italics in the examples represent the Main....also in the Seriousness Dial section you could repeat these same examples with the same abilities named differently..."Unholy Eviscerate" in a blood and rust setting, "Slice, dice, and Jullienne" for a more comedic setting...
8) under "Distributing Initial Dice" since you specifically mention "Five abilities" you should probably also specify "two" for saving throws. Also the Wealth and Provisions line seems to be missing a word. Probably "one" in the second sentence.
Looks most tasty; can't wait for the main course.
Valimar hit all the points I was going to make about rules clarity and such.
It looks seriously fun as all hell.. I can't wait to give it a play.
You said in another thread that you had tweaked the magic difficulties down a bit- how so? What does the diff scale look like now?
Quote from: Valamir2) You may want to define "median" for the mathematically ignorant readers.
3) Human and other races dial: how about mentioning a dial setting that allows ALL races to be played as having a plethora of classes. I may want Human Knights and Goblin Pumpkin Bombers both. Wouldn't be "standard", but hey thats what a dial is for, right?
I think the point of the race/class thing is, play a standard (RPG parlance="boring") race, like a human, and you're able to spice it up using a class. Play a non-standard (RPG parlance="kewl!") race and you don't get to add that extra wrinkle.
I agree that lots of examples of the dials in-play would be excellent.
Quote from: Clinton R Nixon
Bonus question: what movie is the Paladin heading font stolen from?
- Clinton
I'll bite. I believe it's from the Matrix, correct?
Quote from: Jared A. SorensenI think the point of the race/class thing is, play a standard (RPG parlance="boring") race, like a human, and you're able to spice it up using a class. Play a non-standard (RPG parlance="kewl!") race and you don't get to add that extra wrinkle.
That is indeed the way I understood it from the Krawl days, too.
But, since the point of dials is to personalize your game to taste, that seems like an obvious thing to include. It happens to be the position I'd set the dial in myself, which is probably why it stuck out with me.
(I'm a HUGE fan of Donjon...NOT a huge fan of Donjon as parody, hense my continued discomfort with "Save vs Transmogrify" and "Wherewithal" and my suggestions that those be used for the spoofier play modes and replaced with something more mundane for the less spoofier ones. The obvious D&Doriginal tie in to the race vs class issue just rubs me wrong.)
Matt,
You are completely correct.
Jared,
You are also correct. Here goes a little geeky rant: man, I really hated going from D&D to AD&D. In D&D, the race/class thing was a hard decision - am I a cleric (I can fight, and bring the wrath of God) or a dwarf (badass fighter, and underground abilities). AD&D came along and suddenly everyone in the world was a half-elf bard, the bastards. They get all of the advantages of being an elf, but few drawbacks, and can fight, steal, and cast spells. Honestly, it homogenized characters to the point that I'd really rather play the original stuff.
In Donjon, there are no half-elf bards. (Although making a half-elf race with the abilities Influence People with Song, Fight with Longswords, Pick Locks, Inspiring Magic, and Lore about Famous Adventurers would be fine - and kind of funny.)
heh, heh...yup...I could tell that about you Clinton from Donjon without needing the rant. I, if it isn't equally obvious, am 180 degrees opposite on that issue. I detested the D&D race vs class distinction as being utter nonsense (since civilization pretty much developed because individuals in cooperation were able to specialize, it is completely unfathomable to me how there could be a civilization whose members aren't specialized...yeah call it the sim monkey in me)
Which is why I suggested including the alternative as a dial position since there's no possiblity of making it the default one ;-)
Why isn't "Half-Elf Bard" a good class? Works just fine for me... considering it makes no difference rule-wise, why bother with the distinction?
Clinton, you need examples of play, you let me know.
Bailywolf,
Half-elf Bard doesn't work because of the nature of the game. If you describe a Half-elf with the skills Clinton mentioned, you're essentially both
a) Declaring that all half-elfs (at least the ones that use your race's skills) are bards, making fun of the stereotype, and
b) Going back to Donjon's D&D roots, where you were either a race OR a class. That decision made us both smile a ton.
I don't see why you couldn't allow race-class combinations, but it's not in the original spirit of Donjon. Donjon walks a line (it was a LOT finer in the beginning) between outrageous fantasy and D&D parody.
I would suggest a separate section in the book for alternate ways of playing Donjon, including things like non-Parody play (the Parody part is really much more visible during character creation than actual play), alternate names for abilities (you know, the more mundane nouns), the race/class issue, etc. Clinton? Thoughts?
And durnit, the sooner you get this thing done, the sooner I can work on Donjon: Post-Apokalypse. I've already got a bunch on mutations and vehicle combat.
I'm still into doing StarKrawl (where ya play a spaceship rather than the dude who flies it).
So Clinton...what would happen if Zak and I were both playing Donjon and we both wanted to play Bone Granite Trolls (or whatever) in a humans-are-standard game? Do we both get the same abilities?
Just curious -- I have a rule in octaNe that forbids two or more players with the same Role...wonderin' if Donjon has a similar prohibition.
Quote from: Jared A. SorensenJust curious -- I have a rule in octaNe that forbids two or more players with the same Role...wonderin' if Donjon has a similar prohibition.
(doing a poor job of standing in for Clinton who's left for Alabama) Not to my knowledge, unless he's added it recently. But it's a damn good idea. I'd say you either all play different Classes or all the same Class (as some kind of optional variant, definitely not the norm).
I can certainly understand the spirit behind the rule ( I to evolved from a treasure grubbing dungeon crawling munchkin-in-waiting to the Higher Being you know today) but... I don't know. Seems a bit heavy handed.
I'd be happier if the dial for this scheme were wider, ranging from "anything goes" to "x race only" with "humans default" in the neutral position. At the lowest level of paradoy, you can mix-n-match race and skillset descritions willy nilly...at the top, everyone is a human (or whatever... imagine using Donjon to run tiny sentient ants or something...).
But any complaint thereabouts is just superficial. I could always run Advanzedz Donjon if I wanted to...
Quote from: Valamir
(I'm a HUGE fan of Donjon...NOT a huge fan of Donjon as parody, hense my continued discomfort with "Save vs Transmogrify" and "Wherewithal" and my suggestions that those be used for the spoofier play modes and replaced with something more mundane for the less spoofier ones. The obvious D&Doriginal tie in to the race vs class issue just rubs me wrong.)
<PEDANT MODE ON>
Actually, Original D&D didn't have the "races are classes" thing -- that was "added" to the 1980 Basic/Expert D&D to make it more distinct from AD&D, which TSR wanted to do because of Dave Arneson's lawsuit over them not paying him royalties on AD&D.
In the original 1974 version, races were treated pretty much as they were in AD&D -- you're X race, you can choose from Y classes. (Granted, for most of the races, "Fighter" was the only class choice in the original set, but the expansions soon took care of that, and there was no "dwarf class", "elf class", etc.) The same was true in the 1977 "Blue Book" version.
<PEDANT MODE OFF>
--Travis
Quote from: Travis<PEDANT>
Actually, Original D&D didn't have the "races are classes" thing -- that was "added" to the 1980 Basic/Expert D&D to make it more distinct from AD&D, which TSR wanted to do because of Dave Arneson's lawsuit over them not paying him royalties on AD&D.
In the original 1974 version, races were treated pretty much as they were in AD&D -- you're X race, you can choose from Y classes. (Granted, for most of the races, "Fighter" was the only class choice in the original set, but the expansions soon took care of that, and there was no "dwarf class", "elf class", etc.) The same was true in the 1977 "Blue Book" version.
</PEDANT>
Okay, let's be a little careful what we call "Original" Dungeons & Dragons. I'm pretty sure that prize goes to the boxes set of three small, white-covered books (probably 5½ x 8½, but I've only seen them once). Next came the one I 'grew up with,' the 'blue' boxed edition (so-called because the single book's cover was a monochromatic
blue version of the box's artwork). I never purchased a copy of
Orange Dungeons & Dragons books (those featured in
E. T. the Extraterrestrial), so I cannot speak for them.
I am certain (short of recovering the original 'blue book' edition I had) that elf was an alternative to fighter, cleric, thief, or magic-user. You could not play an elf
and a fighter, they were separate. Not called a class per se, but none the less conferred with all the segregated benefits of being a class (including their own 'to hit' chart). As a matter of fact, the thing that confused us most was that the 'blue book' edition we had was it made constant references to
Advanced Dungeons & Dragons and when that first became available it let you choose races
and classes independant of each other.
But then I never purchased any Dungeons & Dragons books (except the Fiend Folio and Monster Manual II) after the first printings of the first three hardbound editions (which are almost totally destroyed, so don't even think of 'collectors value').
Fang Langford
p. s. We always thought that 'ranger' was added to cover all the benefits and abilities that being an 'elf' did originally.
Awesome trivia, Travis. I'm a sucker for that kind of info. Truth be told we were playing the old red-box D&D game when Donjon fell in our mental laps. Here's the actual play account (man, I remember playing the hell out of D&D as a kid, rereading this old thread brought back memories):
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=690
Quote from: Le JoueurQuote from: Travis<PEDANT>
Actually, Original D&D didn't have the "races are classes" thing -- that was "added" to the 1980 Basic/Expert D&D to make it more distinct from AD&D, which TSR wanted to do because of Dave Arneson's lawsuit over them not paying him royalties on AD&D.
In the original 1974 version, races were treated pretty much as they were in AD&D -- you're X race, you can choose from Y classes. (Granted, for most of the races, "Fighter" was the only class choice in the original set, but the expansions soon took care of that, and there was no "dwarf class", "elf class", etc.) The same was true in the 1977 "Blue Book" version.
</PEDANT>
Okay, let's be a little careful what we call "Original" Dungeons & Dragons. I'm pretty sure that prize goes to the boxes set of three small, white-covered books (probably 5½ x 8½, but I've only seen them once).
Sigh... I probably shouldn't have even bothered raising it... should have realized an argument was inevitable. But since I've done it, I guess I'll carry through...
Yep, those are the original D&D, and they're what I'm calling original D&D. To quote from
Men & Magic, the first of the three books:
Quote from: Men & Magic
page 6: Dwarves: Dwarves may opt only for the fighting class...
page 7: Elves: Elves can begin as either Fighting-Men or Magic-Users and freely switch class whenever they choose...
page 7: Hobbits: Should any player wish to be one, he will be limited to the Fighting-Men class...
The supplements
Greyhawk,
Blackmoor, and
Eldritch Wizardry added extra classes. (
Men & Magic only had Fighting Man, Magic-User, and Cleric.)
Greyhawk added the thief, and allowed elves to be either straight thieves or fighter/m-u/thieves, dwarves to be fighter/thieves, and hobbits to be straight thieves. It also added half-elves, but, in typical D&D logic, didn't allow them to be thieves. It also added paladins, allowing any fighter of 17 charisma and lawful alignment to be a paladin -- with no race restrictions.
Blackmoor added monks and assassins, and specified that only humans could be either.
Eldritch Wizardry added druids, and again, only humans could be of that subclass.
So... in the core books of original D&D, races weren't specifically "classes", but humans and elves were the only races with any choice of what class to be.
Greyhawk, however, gave some choice to dwarves and halflings.
Quote from: Le Joueur
Next came the one I 'grew up with,' the 'blue' boxed edition (so-called because the single book's cover was a monochromatic blue version of the box's artwork). I never purchased a copy of Orange Dungeons & Dragons books (those featured in E. T. the Extraterrestrial), so I cannot speak for them.
I am certain (short of recovering the original 'blue book' edition I had) that elf was an alternative to fighter, cleric, thief, or magic-user. You could not play an elf and a fighter, they were separate. Not called a class per se, but none the less conferred with all the segregated benefits of being a class (including their own 'to hit' chart). As a matter of fact, the thing that confused us most was that the 'blue book' edition we had was it made constant references to Advanced Dungeons & Dragons and when that first became available it let you choose races and classes independant of each other.
Checking back with the copy on my shelf, the blue book is somewhat schizophrenic. In one place, it mentions that "all halflings and dwarves are members of the fighter class, unless they choose to be thieves" -- but later, it says that rules for halfling and dwarf thieves will be in AD&D. At one point, it says that "elves progress in levels as both fighting men and magic-users, but since each game nets them experience in both categories equally, they progress more slowly than other characters" -- but later on, it says that elves get 1d6 hit points per level (level of which class?), and still later, it gives an experience table for "fighting men, elves, dwarves, and halflings".
For someone coming from Original D&D with the supplements, then, it would likely be "clear" (as it was to me) that races weren't classes. To someone starting with that set, though, it probably wasn't clear at all. So it looks like we can both claim to be right there. :-)
The "red book" version (what Fang's calling "orange book", and some people call "pink book" -- different printings seem to have come out a bit different in color) is the first version that gives separate experience tables for Halflings, Dwarves, and Elves, and removes any mention of other options than following the pre-set paths given for those races.
Quote from: Le Joueur
But then I never purchased any Dungeons & Dragons books (except the Fiend Folio and Monster Manual II) after the first printings of the first three hardbound editions (which are almost totally destroyed, so don't even think of 'collectors value').
I'm a "system collector" -- I don't care about condition of the gaming stuff I collect as long as I can read it, and don't care about printing or any of that sort of stuff. I've got almost every edition of D&D that was ever published (leaving out differences in different printings of the same edition). Only one I'm lacking at this point is
The Classic Dungeons & Dragons Game.
What can I say? I'm just a nut... :-)
--Travis