This project was born due to an interesting Story Games thread starring Eero Tuovinen.

It interested me enough to generate some simple ideas for mechanics. After reading the thread the other night, I immediately wrote a little bit and the following houses the results...

Dungeon Crashers, an early build, google docs edition.

It is unpolished and the formatting is dirt simple. The ideas aren't fleshed out and the document is 4-pages. The character sheet mockup I created is maybe a little bigger than a quarter of a sheet of paper. I am pleased by this.

The following is my To-Do List...

• General polish including editing and clarification
• Formatting improvements
• Statement declaring intention of play style
• GM advice for running an off-the-cuff dungeon survival fantasy RPG
• Proper explanation of what Fighting Spirit means to the fiction
• Proper explanation of what a 'scene' is to the game
• Combat structure*
• Character Advancement
• Emphasis on improvisation as a strength, extolling the virtues of the Adventurer Profession

[right]* Which will just end up being, "Roll for static initiative, take turns, make checks, repeat."[/right]

I would really like some feedback. Tell me it is neat, horrible, depressing, a clone of something already in existence or whatever. I like constructive criticism and I would appreciate an explanation that builds upon your comment. Specifically, do you agree with everything on the To-Do List? Any suggestions about items that should go along with the ideas on the To-Do List? Does something need a much better explanation? Do the Abilities seem like they would produce fun for you? Is the equipment system too simple, not rewarding enough, too unrealistic, etc? Are you bothered by a roll under system that expressly uses D8s? How about that Condition system? Is relying on logic of the name alone for narrative/story qualities a bad idea? Any suggestions on Conditions I should "hardcore" into the game? Do you hate the Bad Guy system? If you do or don't, why? Too simple, samey, GM advice about personalization is garbage, etc...?

In any event, thank you for your time!

I've had some interesting tidbits and points of contention come up in my thread on Praxis and RPG.net.

Turns out that player defined Disciplines aren't the way to go.

The Attribute and Task Resolution system needs some careful clarification text in order to prevent munchkins from a free reign.

The GMing section will need a careful but instructive set of rules, expectations and the like for an Adversarial-style of gaming.

Finally, and perhaps most significantly, is that the Recall action needs some more structure. Sages will still be able to ask questions but with the added capability of inserting advantageous facts into the fiction. Instead of 1 to 8 questions or what-have-you, Sages win (tentatively) Recall points with successful Recall Checks that allow them to either ask a question for 1, insert a minor (+1) advantage to a situation for 2 and a major advantage for an entire scene for 3.

Oh, and I forgot to link to the SG thread this game is based on = Here It Is.

Hi Matthew,

It's structure seems to be so much so survival fantasy (as you put it) that it's a gamist RPG?

Evaluating it in gamist terms, it seems to have no campaign ending built into it? What's your own experience with playing games with this structure (and yes, I'll grant it's been the traditional structure for 30 years or so)? From my own experience, while the initial battles might be exciting...but then there's another one - then another one - and all seemingly necessary, but without any concrete metric of getting towards an ending. So each battle becomes work - not done because it was fun, but because you 'have to' in a quest towards an indeterminant ending. In other words, a hamster wheel. OR what happens is the battles remain fresh and exciting, but no one really cares about the overall campaigns result.

What's your experience playing under that method?

Callan wrote: Hi Matthew,

It's structure seems to be so much so survival fantasy (as you put it) that it's a gamist RPG?

Evaluating it in gamist terms, it seems to have no campaign ending built into it? What's your own experience with playing games with this structure (and yes, I'll grant it's been the traditional structure for 30 years or so)? From my own experience, while the initial battles might be exciting...but then there's another one - then another one - and all seemingly necessary, but without any concrete metric of getting towards an ending. So each battle becomes work - not done because it was fun, but because you 'have to' in a quest towards an indeterminant ending. In other words, a hamster wheel.

OR what happens is the battles remain fresh and exciting, but no one really cares about the overall campaigns result.

What's your experience playing under that method?

My question to you is... do the two have to be mutually exclusive?

So I'd say that my experiences with that kind of play are somewhat limited and didn't turn out that great. It didn't have anything to do with the structure of play, however, more or less it was the game's mechanics coupled with unimaginative GMs that ruined it for me.

Callan wrote: Or more to the point, say you actually wanted to make battles and an overall campaign mutually exclusive in terms of interest, how would you design it? For myself, I'd make it that following the conventions of one has no effect on the other.

Well, how did the unimaginative GM ruin it? Was it perhaps the realisation that this unimaginativeness was going to go on...forever? Game after game after game of this same behaviour? Or if not forever, for as long as the GM deemed it should go on?

What if the campaign was only going to run for 10 sessions, do you think you might have stuck it out instead?

Anyway, for what it's worth, I think I've tried to make smaller combat rules which are intensely exciting - in order to still be exciting after hundreds of sessions. But the fact is, if you do anything for long enough, you get sick of it. No one can design something so awesome it breaks that fact. So if I seem to be harping on about having an ending, fair enough, but you can see why it seems important to me (even if somehow it is not the case I take it to be).

Our D&D campaigns rarely lasted more than four sessions! The only time we got passed level 10 was when we started out as level 5 bad guys.

I envision this game being used for campaigns lasting about five sessions. But that is for the dedicated few. I'm sure two or three sessions would be the norm. That is one of the reasons why I like PCs beginning with 3 Levels already.
Survivability doesn't increase at an alarming rate, even as the characters get into the higher levels. A few misplaced rolls and some weak strategic/tactical thinking and the party could very well get wiped out.

^ Thinking about that last statement... I think a "living" world would make these campaigns better. That way if your character dies in the Pits of Chaos... your next character might be the one to conquer those pits and claim his stuff. Of course, such corpses will be subject to necromancy and demonic possession.

I was also thinking about writing in a sort of variant to the way characters are built. PCs begin with no Levels and only 1 piece of equipment, as opposed to 3 and 3... however, each player gets two or three of these characters. Whomever survives the 1st dungeon becomes a "real" PC.

I've considered that 'start off with multiple characters who are very vulnerable to death'. I think it has exciting potential, because instead of the personality one would like to survive, one likely end up with a persona that wouldn't have been ones first choice to play on to herodom. Thus taking a person out of their comfort zone a bit. I would actually recommend that once a players lost all but one character, the final one instantly gains full PC stats (as it'd be rather drab for that last one to die or for the GM to pussy foot around (which is simply doing the same thing as giving it full PC stats, but not explicitly so in the rules)). I think having it would really help with word of mouth, which is important for RPG game distribution (free or otherwise). Good luck with it, Matthew!

I think that would be a fine idea, actually. You could even describe it in game as a moment of awakening or finally hearing the call of the hero or some such cheesiness.

I'm not about gritty fantasy so epic and heroic fantasy moments like that would feel cheesy in a good way. =P

Thanks for the well-wishing... Once I get a revision of the text done, I'll make another post here for folks' perusal.

Has the revised edition been posted?
--
TAZ

zircher wrote:
Has the revised edition been posted?

I could see rolling (yuk, yuk) with the 'to dodge" stat.  When combined with a good armor system, you can get a fairly elegant combat simulation that has built in logic for touch based attacks/magic.  And, it could be easily argued that a competent (100% accuracy) swordsman should hit the log every time.
--
TAZ

Agreed. :)
The game's genre changed from dungeon survival fantasy to tactical dungeon destroying fantasy.

Of course, all of that can be dialed down to something more grimdark if one wanted to... I just always fall into this trap where I want my fantasy more heroic and less mundane. That may or may not be a detriment to my ability as a designer but... I figure I should just design to my strengths and create something I actually enjoy.

Plus, I think pre-3.x D&D has dungeon survival fantasy down pretty good already. My beef is with modern heroic fantasy. =P

zircher wrote: When combined with a good armor system, you can get a fairly elegant combat simulation that has built in logic for touch based attacks/magic.

And, it could be easily argued that a competent (100% accuracy) swordsman should hit the log every time.

I'm not one for calling any design stupid when it is simple and does the job intended.

Adding to HP is just an ablative armor system where HP comes off of armor first.  There are a few things that might act as exceptions to that rule, poison blow gun darts and magic/non-ablative armor.  Would like to hear your thoughts on those.  Even shield spells that wear away would easily fit in that system.  There's a little bit of player strategy in there when a player has to tell the GM if they're taking it on the shield or armor.  Similarly, the armor repair skill/feat/talent would 'heal' armor.  When expended, a shield or suit of armor is not magically destroyed, it's just been rendered shoddy and ineffective at protection.

The armorer may be as important as the cleric after the battle.  :-)
--
TAZ

zircher wrote: Adding to HP is just an ablative armor system where HP comes off of armor first.  There are a few things that might act as exceptions to that rule, poison blow gun darts and magic/non-ablative armor.  Would like to hear your thoughts on those.

Well then, mission accomplished!  The thinking and designing part that.  I'm sure the writing part will follow.  :-)
--
TAZ