Reports of Two Contrasting Games: MLWM and Donjon

Chris,

Makes perfect sense to me.

Marcus,

I hope I wasn't giving the impression that I thought the magic rules were all hunky-dory and everybody else who's had problems with them must be nuts. 'Cuz I don't think that. I assume that if everyone has had problems with the magic, that's probably because there are problems with the magic system. And I mean mechanical problems above and beyond the lack of solid "How to use this magic system effectively/appropriately" kinds of textual support. In our play, we've been a) very strict about what a "word" can do (there's at least one interesting thread about that I think in the Anvilwerks forum), and b) very strict about what the size of the die pool and number of successes means, in the sense of always sticking very close to the rule that everything has a rating, and so anything, from "Tough" to "Invincible and Undying" is only as good as its rating allows it to be. Those are, I think, the two in-game constraints that have helped make it work. But more than that, there's something else, and it gets at what you're saying about the system not standing up to the test of the "this game is about winning" stuff in the text.

It's that I think that stuff's wrong. Yeah, I know, it's probably a bit arrogant to think I know what the game's really designed to do better than the designer does, but what the hell, I'll say it anyway. I think all that text about "this game is about winning" and so on is almost like another level of "exploration of D&D." See, D&D supports that kind of play, so Donjon says it does too. But it just don't. It doesn't do best what it says it does best. It does something else better. So I'm not so much saying, "If the players all agree to play nice, the rules will work" so much as I'm saying, "If the players play to the game's real strengths instead of what it claims, then they'll work." (Of course, how are you supposed to know that if the game tells you it does something else???) That's the thrust of my main argument, which is really in support of what you're saying in general about the game -- you went in expecting the game to do one thing, because by god it told you it did, but then it didn't. If I'm completely frank, as much as I love it (or perhaps because I love it and its promise so much), I think Donjon could use about six months of honest-to-god intensive playtesting followed by a revision.

Or maybe something like a "Donjoneer's Survival Guide," a supplement or free supplement filled with additional rulings, kind of an "Unearthed Arcana" for Donjon. It could probably be filled with fan-contributed materials. I've honestly thought about writing something like this and sending it to Clinton for perusal, and there's a good set of ideas in the Anvilwerks forum, so I'm sure other folks would have contributions. But really, some of the materials I'd put in a "Donjoneer's Survival Guide" would be things that should go in the core rules. Anyway, all this is mostly beside the point. The general point is, I agree that your initial problems with Donjon play did have their roots in the game's mechanics and the game's text, and especially in the clash between the two. And I say that as a fan of the game.

Rich