Played the fith session last night on magicstar.net in #indie-rpgs. You can read the session IRC log at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/indie-netgaming and follow the links to the Files section.

I must say, I think all of the problems with stomping are for the most part not showing up between us. We're very comfortable now with "editing" narration when we do.

One HUGE thing that I realized running the game was that the more often the dice were "hitting the table" the more comfortable I was. When there were no Tests happening I felt like the game was a lot like the old D&D games where play was mostly question and answer. When the dice were falling, events started to roll, with facts flying fast and furious creating all sorts of color and danger. I've got a big mental note to start hammering away on those Tests next time we play.

Nathan could not join us, but MikeD and Raven were there. Towards the end of the session, they rescued a lot of innocent people and were about a big decision point tactically speaking. This is where the game suddenly pivoted on a series of facts that Raven pulled out of a Test. He basically kicked the situation in DANGER! mode.

An NPC bandit leader who Raven's psionic master convinced to switch sides and betray his foul, sorcereress master, vanished. Raven used some of the facts to announce that he had been summoned, magically, to her presense and that everyone was in real danger. Essentially, he was pushing towards the confrontation with the Big Bad. Yay!

I think this such a big stab at the way a lot of the old dungeon crawl games were played. It's utterly cool to think that a player could create and realize these sorts of game events without worrying about screwing the GM. Yeah, I said screwing the GM.

In most other RPGs the person running the game goes through this ritual of plotting out what is probably going to happen. The players have to play along, trying to navigate between the things they can control and the things that if they try to control may "ruin" those plans. Donjon is nothing like this. When the players begin to throw down facts, it disrupts nothing.

The rules clearly support the injection of the player-authored stuff. The text makes a point that in game preperation, the GM shouldn't be concerned about how to steer the players towards the Big Bad. If I recall, the text mentions that the players will exert a lot of control over when and how it happens.

So, Raven, Nathan, and MikeD - get ready: Tanu is coming.

Darn it, I so want to play a game of Donjon--I even wrote an IRC dicebot for it!--but my schedule has been too mixed up with school, the move, and other obligations to give it a shot.

If you decide to do this again sometime, please let me know!  The thought of playing Donjon without having to run it... (swoon)

We've been playing every Wendesday night at  10pm EST/9pm CST. Join us, please.

I am happy to hear you've worked the kinks out!

I don't think the GM advice is the Donjon text is helpful as it needs to be. Floundering around in the beginning seems to be a pretty common problem. Is it the intentional similarity to old D&D encourage players to revert to old habits? Is it just a game where the players have to jam a while together before they find the groove? I'm not sure yet.

Larry,

I suppose you could just play it like D&D-plus-some-weird-dice-rules.

Given the experiences of people here who have played Donjon, perhaps the 2nd edition will make a point to emphasize the parts that make Donjon more Donjon-ey.

Damn.  You have to pick the night that I'm elsewhere!

I think one of the biggest differences between Donjon and D&D are the dice -- that is, actually rolling them. Many a D&D session I've played in has been all role-playing (and this is where zombified D&Der's prostrate themselves and moan in awe at the holy grail...bleck), and nary a die has hit the table the whole night.

While some people consider that to be the epitome of role-playing, I EMPHATICALLY do not. If I wanted to do half-assed improv theater, I'd join a half-assed improv theater group. If a game has dice, I'd better be rolling them -- a lot!

Rolling dice and the associated fact-making seems to be the heart of the Donjon game, really setting it apart from D&D and similar where the dice (honestly) aren't so important.

Thus, if Clinton ever does decide to publish a second edition of Donjon, my first advice to him would be that the text should really establish and encourage the use of the dice, to roll all the time: any time there is or something could be at stake, any time there might possibly be more than one different outcome, dice should hit the table.

Because otherwise you end up with fiat, fiat, fiat -- and that doesn't seem to fit the Donjon style. I might even go so far as to say absolutely nothing should be said by anyone unless there is some sort of dice contest attached to it, but that might get a bit crazy, and sometimes it is ok to just say, "Nah, I've got nothing. Whatever you want to throw in here will be fine with me, DM."

But I also think that can start happening too much, particularly with those used to D&D (like us), where everything is "roll-or-you're-hosed" or "rolling-interferes-with-storytelling". In our game, this seems to have occurred: "No need to roll to see if you are hidden, you're fine," or "No need to make a disguise check, they buy it." No! I want the excitement and danger of rolling those dice! Dice contribute to story and role-playing, not detract!

Imagine if we had rolled when Granix presented himself as a new attache to Tanu, and I had failed! What then? They don't buy it...perhaps Thorum betrayed us right there to his men (figuring the odds were evened). Or perhaps I succeed and get some facts to use to describe how the react to this, or take some bonus dice to use the next time I'm dealing with Thorum's bandits.

Also, I am a big believer in penalties (and bonuses) actually being penalties (or bonuses). Color must be reinforced by mechanics! So, Mike's character tries to hide and fails with like 3 successes? The Donjon Master declares a fact or two, and then drops a -1 or -2 dice to attempts to hide in that particular area (or while under a particular effect -- whatever is going on at the moment). This is something we haven't really been exploiting fully.

I'm not sure, James, but it almost feels like you aren't because you are worried about looking like an old skool player-hosing DM. If you are, don't. Seriously! Fuck us over. Fuck us over bad when you win those rolls. That's the point; that's practically the GM's job in Donjon, "How can I make your character's lives more difficult/interesting/challenging?"

So, failures should be meaningful, and that can be accomplished by either directly thwarting specific goals (ie: "You're too late, the ritual has begun!" etc.) or most often through mechanically measurable means (ie: specific penalites to dice rolls related to the action, effect or event).

Despite all that, I do think we're getting much more comfortable with the system and we're all doing a good job in play. It is fun, though I can sense we're still trying to find the groove of the game, the balance point of interaction both rules-wise (roll or not roll?) and socially (will they be mad at me if I..? Is this cool/interesting enough?).

greyorm wrote:
Thus, if Clinton ever does decide to publish a second edition of Donjon, my first advice to him would be that the text should really establish and encourage the use of the dice, to roll all the time: any time there is or something could be at stake, any time there might possibly be more than one different outcome, dice should hit the table.

Because otherwise you end up with fiat, fiat, fiat -- and that doesn't seem to fit the Donjon style. I might even go so far as to say absolutely nothing should be said by anyone unless there is some sort of dice contest attached to it, but that might get a bit crazy, and sometimes it is ok to just say, "Nah, I've got nothing. Whatever you want to throw in here will be fine with me, DM."

wrote:
But I also think that can start happening too much, particularly with those used to D&D (like us), where everything is "roll-or-you're-hosed" or "rolling-interferes-with-storytelling". In our game, this seems to have occurred: "No need to roll to see if you are hidden, you're fine," or "No need to make a disguise check, they buy it." No! I want the excitement and danger of rolling those dice! Dice contribute to story and role-playing, not detract!

wrote:
Also, I am a big believer in penalties (and bonuses) actually being penalties (or bonuses). Color must be reinforced by mechanics! So, Mike's character tries to hide and fails with like 3 successes? The Donjon Master declares a fact or two, and then drops a -1 or -2 dice to attempts to hide in that particular area (or while under a particular effect -- whatever is going on at the moment). This is something we haven't really been exploiting fully.

The dice rolling mechanic in Donjon is seriously fun, even on its own. It may have helped that Chris actually had enough D20s for the table.

I, uh, wasn't actually implying that Donjon is like D&D. In fact, I'd say it's emphatically not like D&D. The task of the GM is really different. I think if you try to play Donjon like D&D with a different rules system, it will turn out un-fun. Rather, I think that where there are gaps in the text, there's a temptation, due to the color, to fill those gaps in with the familiar way of doing things.

Now, a lot of the stuff Donjon was doing was sort of terra incognita when it was written. And the gaps in the rules for some game elements requires any given group to build a certain amount of ad hoc system (boy I dig that rules/system dichotomy) in a fashion interestingly similar to the early days of D&D. So in respect to recapturing that particular nostalgia, Donjon rocks pretty hard. But, well, I'm not real interested in slogging on until it becomes fun. That's the kind of play I was doing before I got to the Forge. I want fun now.

It'd be sort of funny if Donjon got increasingly drifted new versions of its own.

Hmm. The game is under Creative Commons, so it's not like we have to wait for Clinton to come down from his exalted...  uh, wherever he's staying now... and bless us with a new version. Compiling "stuff about Donjon we figured out the hard way" would be a good start.

I think unless we've got more to say about filling in the gaps, as Larry put it, I've had my say in this thread.

Larry, care to open a new one about drifting Donjon? I'm all ears and might have some things to say about it as continue with our DarkSun journey.

BTW, James, just in case I sounded (or sound) rabid or as though I was taking shots at you specifically, let me assure you I am not. The "casual conversational" tone was undoubtedly lost in the textual translation of my thoughts.

I am perfectly satisfied with your DMing, given that 1) this is the first time any of us have played Donjon and 2) this is the first time any of us have played together as a group. We're still in that "figuring the game and each other out" period, so as I see it, everything's just fine.

JamesDJIII wrote: Yeah, I see your point. Now I recall mentioning that players could call for Tests too - but I think  missed the hints of "MAKE US ROLL!"

I'll look over the rules again. I want some more solid direciton on the currency relationship between penalties from DM victories in a failed Test and lasting penalties as you just laid out. I betcha the rules for Spell Dice could be applied, in terms of cost and duration for these penalties. Hmmmm....

And yes, Raven, I am VERY afraid of old skool player-hosing. Tell ya what, next time you guys fail a Test, I'm gonna turn the hose on, '68 Democrat National Convention style.

As far finding that groove, I have no doubts we'll find it. It's really hard to shake 20 or so years of "training" on how to play these games.