Dragon Warriors

I’ve started reading the Players Guide and decided to share my thoughts bit by bit as I read through it. What I like, what I’d change, what I think is missing, and the questions it raises in my mind!

So when I pick up a DW expansion (official or fan made) what is it I’m looking for? Well two things. The first is the feel. I want to feel like that thirteen year old boy reading book one again. That atmosphere of learning the rules via the adventures of Sir Balin. I immersed myself in that world so easily. I didn’t need lots of rules and charts telling me the average rainfall and humidity for some invented land. It was enough to know it was a dark and stormy place were peasants locked their doors at night. Far more evocative and encouraging of role-play.

That takes me to the second thing I look for, simplicity. Easy to understand rules that can be applied quickly. The last thing anyone wants is to get bogged down in a debate about the intent of the rules when there is a treasure hoard to claim. Again all those years ago when I first read these books it just made sense to me. Attack versus Defence was so simple and logical to me.

So with that in mind let’s take a look at the Knave.

Now before I pass comment on the new professions I have to say that I was one of the play testers.

On first read the knave was my least favourite of the three new professions, but it has grown on me. The debate around the Knave was one of role-play v roll-play. Shouldn’t a player have to act the part of talking their way out of a situation rather than rolling a die? Well consider a player who has to make a strength test, they don’t need to actually be physically strong and lift something to pass, so shouldn’t the same option apply here? I think it’s fair enough to say yes but if others don’t the rules are optional

Start stats are reasonable although another point of attack would have been nice. I think a character with a smart mouth would have perhaps annoyed a few people along the way as they learnt their craft meaning a few hard knocks and fights along the way. So a higher start attack than a sorcerer could have been justified, but it’s not the end of the world.

The Skills.
Without going over them one by one I think most of the skills make sense for this profession and add a unique style and flavour that can work well with a group.

However I would have also liked to have seen picklock as an option for the Knave, they are the stealing type so this skill would fit well. (House rule here we come)

Now the skills I have questions about…

Bodyguard. I can see what this is trying to achieve but I still don’t feel comfortable with it. The attract followers is a bit D&D and if I’m running a game, I prefer to control when and if NPCs come into it. Yes I can say you don’t find anyone but then the player may get annoyed. Still I’ll try work with it but it just doesn’t feel right to me.

The other part of the knave I don’t like are all the different skills that have you make a looks based test. The intimidation part of body guard, presence, hypnotic suggestion all behave in similar ways. Add in the optional looks and we now have four uses for looks. It’s just overkill I think.

My main problem is that the looks rules, presence and hypnotic suggestion are all described in such similar ways it is hard to tell which to use in any given situation. The example has presence being used by a knave to talk his way past the Earl’s niece. The looks rule says it can be used to talk your way past a sentry. Hypnotic suggestion then has a knave borrowing a guard’s keys. There is a lot in common between the three and for me it is not clear cut where the lines are drawn between the three. It fails the simplicity test for me.

I’d like to hear how other people see the difference between the three. It will help me in deciding how to use them and perhaps add clarifying house rules for my players.

One thing that pops up in my mind, the Knave will dominate conversations. I suppose everyone else can do the talking but here we are with so many powers. Maybe more investment in possible situations like how a Knave would bargain his way in a transaction and reducing prices rather than this stuff that stands out. Skills or situations that other people can get involved in, as much as a sorcerer can wield a sword and a looks 18 knight can bargain his way through a business transaction.

Maybe some adventuring rules. As much as we have climbing scores and reflexes, maybe we can put minimum requirements like 'bargain down 10%, automatic success with looks 13-15, bargain down 30%, looks 18 only. Rolls for others. It would allow more fluid outcomes as much as you can be sure a reflexes 18 guy can climb glass panels...

And maybe if they did something like that for Psychic talent. Give a magic wand to a psychic talent 3 barbarian, and watch him use it as a toothpick....

_________________
Speech!





And so the show begins!!!
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/dwp ... ssages/640

This is a big thing for me. In RPGs, characteristics like Looks and Int (and their equivalents in other games) tend to get substituted for the player's scores (and consequently tend to be dump stats in a lot of games). Assuming you want role-play over roll-play, I see two main approaches (there are others, but I'll stick to these two for simple contrast):

1. The GM rolls the outcome of the social encounter in secret and kicks off the social scene, playing the part of the NPC in accordance with thh result of the roll. The player hasn't seen the roll, so must gauge the result from the NPCs reaction. If the roll is close, the GM might allow the player's arguments to sway the result one way or the other (maybe the roll was close in the player's favour, but the player gives up before the GM plays out the eventual 'win', meaning he actually 'loses'). However, the player's role-playing actions may have no bearing on the outcome of the encounter, just as with combat or spellcasting, which could frustrate players. This approach favours players with lower social skills than their characters.
2. Alternatively, play out the social interaction first, and then roll dice, applying whatever modifier the GM feels appropriate based on the arguments the player was able to come up with. I prefer this approach - the player can always default back to their character's social skills, but gives them an opportunity for their creativity to affect the outcome, much as if the player cleverly uses terrain or other scene dressing in combat, for example.

In more complicated social interactions, you can actually play them like combats - going various rounds until someone wins (whatever that means for the situation - the guard relinquishes the keys, the bureaucrat signs a form, the barmaid agrees to 'go upstairs' with the barbarian, etc.). This can actually be a great way to rebalance the focus of play away from combat (we all know how much of a time-sink combat can be in RPGs, and DW is no exception, which can result in non-combat orientated players feeling less involved - especially if their moment to shine in an adventure is over in a single die roll!)

_________________
Cobwebbed Dragon (Lee)

https://www.cobwebbedforest.co.uk/
https://www.dragonwarriors.uk/
https://twitter.com/CobwebbedDragon
Now on YouTube!

Good feedback on the Knave profession.

Suffice to say there is a wide array of differing viewpoints on the relative merits of social rules in general. The Knave's Looks mechanic was created to offset a specific criticism that the Looks attribute was a dump stat, and also a potential criticism wherein players who prefer crunchy social rules might have been disappointed with a charisma-driven Profession that actually lacked any dedicated charisma-based mechanic... That could have been embarrasing!

As you rightly point out, crunchy social rules are very divisive - and this is exactly why the Looks rules are merely optional. On one hand, the Looks mechanic could be used as written, or as Lee suggests the Looks mechanics could even be modified for your own house rules. On the other, I would suggest that if your group prefers discourse-based social encounters then feel free to ignore the Looks rules entirely. Whichever your group prefers!

_________________
Show me the mythic legends, mighty heroes and mysterious faerie creatures!

Some interesting ideas to consider.

I have to say I am ok with incorporating the looks rule simply because other human characteristics like strength, reflexes and intelligence are tested by a roll of the dice so why should looks be the only one that you actually need real life debating skills for?

That of course is only my opinion (which is what a forum is for) but I really like the idea of combining the two (role+roll) and giving additional bonuses or penalties for the role play. Definitely something I will use.

I'm still however confused by the different looks based skills and where the line is drawn between them. Do I use the looks rules or presence for example. All too similar which just confuses the issue further.

I think what may be causing some of the confusion is that Presence ( and the others, but we'll stick with Presence for now) as written is assuming that the Optional Looks rules are not being used. Therefore it represents a Looks roll ( and results) as a discrete action of the Presence Skill along with the additional Status adjustment that Presence grants.

Now, if the Optional Looks rules are being used then Presence becomes less useful in and of itself but because of the bonuses that Knaves receive to ALL Looks checks and rolls it becomes easier for them to succeed at making others believe their Status is at a different level than it actually is. And this will flow back into any additional Looks checks as the perceived higher Rank of the Knave will add a bonus to subsequent Looks checks.

Ok.........or have I made it more complicated?




Edit: I think it is definetely the idea and may even be stated....I don't have my book on this work PC...that roleplay should be taken into account by the GM and bonuses or negatives applied accordingly.

_________________
co-author Fury of the Deep
co-author Friends or Foes
co-author Dragon Warriors Players Guide
co-author Cold Fury
co-author Cadaver Draconis
co-author Ordo Draconis 1 and 2.

Genuine question: are there any RPGs that actually do this? Traveller comes close but I'm not aware of an FRPs like that.

Cheers,

-Kyle

This is definitely not to be preferred in my view. It seems to be deep in illusionism territory.

Cheers,

Kyle

I agree, and yet this is exactly how combat works - roll to hit/bypass armour and then narrate what happens. The player has almost no control over combat, but can still narrate a good story from the outcome of the dice rolls. Games played by players with weaker social skills, or just a preference for action scenes, may find this approach works well for them and maintains a faster pace within the game without detracting from the story. Players that want more control over the direction of the story and like more of a balance between action and interaction would probably enjoy trying out the second approach.

_________________
Cobwebbed Dragon (Lee)

https://www.cobwebbedforest.co.uk/
https://www.dragonwarriors.uk/
https://twitter.com/CobwebbedDragon
Now on YouTube!

Except that the outcome of an entire combat is not decided in advance by a secret roll. It's that aspect which sticks in my craw, and I think if combat really was conducted that way many players would perceive it as not just unsatisfying but even insultingly arbitrary.

To do justice to a mechanisation of social interaction, at least if we're trying to justify that by drawing analogies with combat or magic, it needs to be transparent and "blow-by-blow".

Cheers,

Kyle