I played me some Donjon with the Man himself

[Matt Wilson]

Tried me out some Donjon yesterday, with the creator hisself.

Donjon is cool. You can do pretty much anything. And it seems like a dream come true for the otherwise harried and beleaguered GM. Clinton said, "I'm not feeling well, and haven't prepped much."  As long as you have characters with detect/sense/lore skills, not much of a problem. Although I suspect the not feeling well part made the on-the-fly stuff a little tricky.

Our party includes a zombie, a big frog-guy, a sychophant spellcaster, a farm boy (with pitchfork and potato), and a berserker barbarian. We fought weird giant ape skeletons (damn dirty ones who wouldn't get their hands off me), conquered a giant zombie-eating plant, and befriended a monkey who is secretly evil. And we kept forgetting who the farm boy was (main ability: unremarkable).

The only thing I don't like so far is the unwritten rule that says Clinton must always roll better than me in a test. Maybe he was harnessing the power of the onion.

[Bankuei]

The only thing I don't like so far is the unwritten rule that says Clinton must always roll better than me in a test. Maybe he was harnessing the power of the onion.

When I played with him, I didn't like that rule either :P  

Chris

[Jeffrey Miller]

The only thing I don't like so far is the unwritten rule that says Clinton must always roll better than me in a test. Maybe he was harnessing the power of the onion.

When I played with him, I didn't like that rule either :P  

I think is was the power of the potato, myself.  

Someday, Nat will hang up his Da's pitchfork and his Ma's Quilted Armor (gingham and stripes, mostly) and settle down on a nice patch of land, planting the potato of his ancestors -- unless, of course, the monkey eats it first.

--
"Hey, what's your name again?"

[Zak Arntson]

Maybe we should add a house rule: Clinton rolls the next highest die-type. If he had a bunch of d8's against our d10's, we probably would've been equally matched. :)

I wrote a bunch of notes on this game, so maybe I'll recap in detail (if anyone's interested). In short, I love playing this game. Here's some observations (some I made in my Donjon Planescape thread):

+ At least one narrative skill should be required. This is a must, and thankfully we all made sure to have at least one per character.

+ Your actions per turn is measured by a single stat (Discernment). This can bite you in the butt. I like Valamir's suggestion of the Player picking the attribute that determines your Actions.

+ Magic was weakened, to better effect. Before it was unstoppable. With the revised rules (gathering power = Cerebrality + Magic Ability, casting spell = Successes from gathering power in dice + Magic Ability), magic doesn't take the limelight anymore.

+ Combat takes too long. I don't like the attack roll with successes going into a damage roll. Not only are there two rolls (and in Donjon, with the opposed die pools, a single roll takes some time) but there's the possibility of pure whiffs. If you enjoy D&D-length combats, it's absolutely fine. I've found I prefer quick combats with a few decisive rolls.

+ The goofiness dial needs to be declared before play. My last Donjon experience was with GMing my video-game-centric group. So I was in a pretty goofy mode when I created a zombie. Then later, we got a monkey, and I made a provisions roll to find a tuxedo. It seemed to jar some of the other participants. I'm wondering if there should be some group consensus or GM veto, you know, "If it seems off compared to what's going on, we vote on it." Or maybe it wasn't jarring, and I was reading the atmosphere wrongly.

[Jeffrey Miller]

+ Your actions per turn is measured by a single stat (Discernment). This can bite you in the butt. I like Valamir's suggestion of the Player picking the attribute that determines your Actions.

An interesting tweak.  I can definately see this being a major issue, especially if combat takes too long (as you note below).  

+ Combat takes too long. I don't like the attack roll with successes going into a damage roll. Not only are there two rolls (and in Donjon, with the opposed die pools, a single roll takes some time) but there's the possibility of pure whiffs. If you enjoy D&D-length combats, it's absolutely fine. I've found I prefer quick combats with a few decisive rolls.

Yeah, I can see that.  Maybe the number of players is part of it.. at least one can do cool things in/with combat without it being reduced to "oh, that's +2" ;)

(Speaking of combat, it was fun to see my character overlooked by baddies in combat a couple times - he really IS unremarkable! *grin*)

+ The goofiness dial needs to be declared before play. My last Donjon experience was with GMing my video-game-centric group. So I was in a pretty goofy mode when I created a zombie. Then later, we got a monkey, and I made a provisions roll to find a tuxedo. It seemed to jar some of the other participants. I'm wondering if there should be some group consensus or GM veto, you know, "If it seems off compared to what's going on, we vote on it." Or maybe it wasn't jarring, and I was reading the atmosphere wrongly.

Wasn't jarring me at all, although it might have been pushing - but not breaking- the dial, which /I/ was reading as "Princess Bride" with a dash of Terry Pratchett.  Now, if you'd come up with a cool reason for /why/ you had a monkey-sized tuxedo tucked into your, uhm.. wherever zombies carries such things...  oh! oh!  I bet that Reston can't remember why he has one, but the monkey knows...

-jeffrey "here to help, really" miller-

[jdagna]

Here are some of my thoughts:

Magic: The power balance has definitely improved (as Zak mentioned). I personally would like to see some more strict limits imposed on words.  It seems like you can get any effect out of just about any word.  Zak's use of "grave" to make a bridge of gravestones across a river seems like it should need another word ("bridge" or "stone" at least).  Seems like you could cast a "fiery grave" to get a fireball effect out of the word "grave" if things are allowed to be that loose.  And, that being the case, why bother to link multiple words together, since it just makes the spell less effective?

Combat Actions: I agree that using just Discernment can be a problem.  I'm also not sure Discernment is the best choise - Adroitness seems more related to quick action.  Perhaps averaging the two would be better?  I like the way actions are handled though.

Combat: I still feel like combat takes the game from something that is firmly (and wackily) in the player's control and slams it back into something like OD&D mode. I agree with Zak that the time spent on combat can be a bit long - I've seen worse, though.  Personally, I'd eliminate a separate roll for damage.  The sucesses gained in an attack could be used for damage purposes, and armor and weapon strength could simply be added to the number of successes.  This might be a bit less realistic... but when you can pull a monkey tuxedo out of your, um, backpack, realism is already out the window.

Anyway, it was all a lot of fun and a nice way to break out of the mold.

[Zak Arntson]

Seems like you could cast a "fiery grave" to get a fireball effect out of the word "grave" if things are allowed to be that loose.  And, that being the case, why bother to link multiple words together, since it just makes the spell less effective?

I approach it from the opposite end: If you can twist your word into something cool enough, you can do it. I thought using gravestones as stepping stones was a pretty solid "grave" application. I do think "Fiery Grave" would be lame, but as GM (or another Player), I'd suggest some kind of burning will o' wisp thing, like "Searing Gravelights" or "Hellish Grave Mist."

But then, my Fighter-D Alpha game (super-de-duper Donjon inspired) gives _everyone_ magic (in the form of Special Moves), to level the playing field. That way you don't have the Mages overshadowing everyone for cool factor.

Though I would argue that the non-magic system is on par with magic for crazy things. I mean, four non-magic facts led to an undead bruce lee plant stomping.

[Mike Holmes]

I think that what Justin is saying, Zak, and quite correctly, is that if you can twist a word into creating any effect, then it's not really limiting at all and just color. Which is not the intent, I think. If it is, then this makes magic skills much wider in appliocation than any other. Which leads to "why not buy it?" syndrome, and, as pointed out voids the need to combine words ever. A magic skill should have similar breadth in application to any other skill. Else the other skills never get used. Why use a climb skill when I can just make a "gravestone ladder"? Or use horseback riding to get from place to place when I can just do a "Gravetravel" spell? You get the picture. Each ability must be limited so that there are reasons to use the others.

Clinton has given the GM a tough assignment in limiting players here. Some limitations will seem arbitrary. But if done well and consistantly, I think magic will be really cool. Working within well defined limits is more fun than just completely free interperetation. IMO.

Mike

[Jeffrey Miller]

I think that what Justin is saying, Zak, and quite correctly, is that if you can twist a word into creating any effect, then it's not really limiting at all and just color. Which is not the intent, I think. If it is, then this makes magic skills much wider in appliocation than any other. Which leads to "why not buy it?" syndrome, and, as pointed out voids the need to combine words ever. A magic skill should have similar breadth in application to any other skill. Else the other skills never get used. Why use a climb skill when I can just make a "gravestone ladder"? Or use horseback riding to get from place to place when I can just do a "Gravetravel" spell? You get the picture. Each ability must be limited so that there are reasons to use the others.

Well, I think in this case it was fine - "grave" should be able to create gravestones, and a player shouldn't ever be penalized for being "creative", which is far removed from "abusive".

-jeffrey "you wanna see abusive?  play in my Tuesday Ars group sometime.." miller-

[Zak Arntson]

A magic skill should have similar breadth in application to any other skill. Else the other skills never get used.

In the system (as revised by Clinton), magic is a harder ability to use than the other abilities. You have to first succeed at gathering magic power (Cerebrality + Magic Ability), and then succeed at casting it. All other abilities require a single roll for success (Successes from first roll + Magic Ability).

I don't know what the probability comparisons are on ability vs. magic rolling. Wouldn't it be terrifying to find out that magic is _more_ likely to succeed? Intuitively, though, it seems more difficult, since you have to make a regular Ability roll (i.e., Attribute + Ability) and use those successes for a pure Ability roll (i.e., Ability + bonus dice).

[Mike Holmes]

I'm not sure which is more effective. But it doesn't really matter. If I have a skill with magic at 3 and a normal skill like Smithing at 3, which will I use to shoe the horse on short notice? Magic is cooler, and will almost certainly take less time than finding a forge.

The point is that even with one restricted word, magic powers are wider in power than other abilities. If magic is limited by the mechanics at all, then it offsets this fact. As soon as you allow a player to just go wild with what he can do, the sooner you'll see people with maxed out magic skills using them for every die roll.

Again, this may just be my preference, but as a player, I'd prefer to work with a word realtively tightly construed by the GM than just a wide open field where the words were just color.

Mike

[Jeffrey Miller]

I'm not sure which is more effective. But it doesn't really matter. If I have a skill with magic at 3 and a normal skill like Smithing at 3, which will I use to shoe the horse on short notice? Magic is cooler, and will almost certainly take less time than finding a forge.

Isn't that a good opportunity for a dial?  Its impossible to try to model magic, since there's a wide variety of possibilities for it. Maybe magic actually takes -longer- or is more expensive than that..

-jeffrey "balance shmalance" miller-

[Clinton R. Nixon]

Guys,

Thanks for the comments. I spent all day yesterday conked out on NyQuil, so I'm just now getting to respond.

I really enjoyed the adventure Sunday as well - I'm looking forward to the next session. As for individual points:

- I like combat as is. Of course, I like D&D combat. I have figured out a way to speed it up (and reduce damage whiffs) that we might try next time. With this method, we roll to attack as normal. If successful, do a number of points of damage equal to (successes + Virility + Damage Rating of weapon) - (opponent's Wherewithal + Damage Rating of armor). It basically eliminates the second roll. You could still use attack successes to state facts and remove them from the damage calculation.

- As for magic, I do plan to be pretty restrictive. I teeter-tottered on letting Zak cast that spell, and set the difficulty to Hard for the spell because I decided it just fit in. I recommend GMs let players try and use magic however they can think to, but feel free to raise the difficulty if it doesn't strictly fit the word they want to use. In addition, you narrate the magic results, so feel free to screw with them. If a "Gravetravel" spell was attempted, and was successful, I'd send you to the inside of the grave you were trying to travel to, for example.

- Initiative. I don't see the problem with it being based off Discernment. It makes Discernment more important, which is part of balancing the system. It also gets overshadowed as you go up levels.

- I did notice that sometimes we dropped the fact system in resolution. While I never mentioned this in the text, I find that this has happened in every game I've run: sometimes, it seems more expedient to use a success/fail system. This is a GM call, and is a normal part of play - it should be agreed on by the affected player, though.