[Donjon] Looking for feedback on a supplement

[Colin Fredericks]

Howdy everyone.

I've been a fan of Donjon for quite a while, and when I looked back into it recently I found out it was on a Creative Commons license. I talked to Clinton and got his blessings to write a supplement, taking an old idea I had for D&D a long time ago and putting it into a game that suits it much better. Now I want to make sure that, unlike the last thing I put out, this one is well-received and properly described.

If anyone wants to take a look at it and would be willing to give me some comments on it, you can download an early version here. It's about 35 pages, 3.8 MB. Note that this is an incomplete version, so it lacks things like editing, page references, full-resolution graphics, etc. I'll take care of those once the text itself is ready.

I'm especially interested in finding out what the supplement needs more of, and how I should describe it to others so they don't get the wrong idea.

--Colin

[The Dragon Master]

It definitely looks well put together, unfortunately haven't had a chance to play through it so I don't know if there is anything missing.

[Hans]

I'm very impressed, Colin.  Just reading through the list of creatures/characters at the end reminds me why I like Donjon so much ("Looks like a real honeybee" as an ability...that is cool).  And that picture of the monkey creature with the beard, what the sam hill?!  Is that a real creature, or photoshopped somehow?  Freaky.

I haven't read through all the text yet, but I think this is a very bang up job, and a spur to other Donjon lovers to do similar things. 

A few points on your "Magic Words" section (page 5):

You said:

Quote

Spells that reduce a Characters flesh wounds and attributes through a Damage test are simply not possible in the Green, regardless of the magic words used.  Magic just isn't powerful enough to damage someone;  the immortals have stolen much of the power of magic to do direct harm for themselves.

Note that I would certainly still try to use magic to temporarily reduce attributes through facts, as both player and GM.  For example, I have Web as a magic word.  I get 4 successes against the opponents resisted Adroitness plus Dodging ability roll for my "Strands of Iron Strength" spell.  I use one of those successes to state the fact "The strands of iron strength envelop his sword arm" and then use the remaining 3 success to penalize my opponents Adroitness -3 for attacks until he can use facts to clear the gunk off.

You said:

Words that involve mind-control are out, including Charm, Dominate, Hypnotize, Convincing, and similar approaches. It is impossible to dictate the actions of others.

What constitutes "mind-control"?  Some examples:

• I am a famous Khaggi Bug-Tamer and have Insect as a magic word, and am fighting a Swarm of Giant Bees.  Can I use my "Insect Scent Signals" spell to state facts to control the actions of the swarm?
• I am a mad but reclusive Water Folk Hermit with Hallucinatory as a magic word, and some pesky Eya raiders are poking around my cave.  Can I use my "Fevered Visions" spell to state facts to dictate how a character responds to the hallucinations I am causing (i.e. "you attack your buddy Smoking Jaguar because you think he is a vicious Assassin Tree")?
• I am a sinister Eya Sacrificer and have Flesh and Blood as magic words.  Can I use my "Living Puppet" spell to make people's bodies do what I want them to do, regardless of what their minds are telling them?

What I am getting at is that players are incredibly clever in the ways they use the facts that their successes give them.  Any of the above could be defined as "mind-control" or not, depending on the group.  So what did you mean:

• Did you really want to absolutely prevent someone from specifying the actions of another character?  If that is the case, the "Mind control" issue is a red-herring.  Simply leave the last sentence of this section and get rid of the rest, as in:
  

  No spell can dictate the actions of another character.

  Personally, I recommend against this, as all of the examples I give above would be prevented and I think they are all cool and seem valid given the setting.
• Did you mean to prevent a certain kind of telepathic/mind reading magic that just doesn't make sense in the setting?  If so, I would add some more fictional content to this section to explain what is prohibited, and why, as you did in the section that immediately follows it about speaking with the dead/gods/etc.  Providing a setting-based reason will help players understand better what it is and isn't reasonable, such as:
  

  Spells that involve direct mind to mind contact, for the purpose of controlling another's mind, altering memories, direct telepathic communication, etc, are not possible; the Green is a very organic place, and the brain is just another organ of the body, a computating hunk of grey flesh.  Mind-to-mind contact make as much sense in the Green as Liver-to-Liver contact.

You said:

Quote

Spells <

I'm going to read through the rest of this, because it all looks like a lot of fun.  Good work!