I completely agree with @treantmonkstemple. My tiny GM brain would rather dump processing power into making up cool things for players to do rather than tracking game resources.
What I'd love to see is someone taking an iconic or very cinematic action scene from a show or movie (the fight in Balin's tomb or the Turtles invading the gang members' garage from Mutant Mayhem or Batman vs Scarecrow's cronies and the Bat-imitators from The Dark Knight, any of the trailer scent sights from the Witcher - scenes that mix combat fighting with stunt action) and run through it as if it was a ttrpg, showing how "players" and "gm" might use the system rules to create that scene. Because most everyone wants combat to feel less like playing checkers and more like a movie action scene.
10:00 - I"ve been playtesting an ability check-driven narrative game that always fails forward: where you will always have at least a partial success, but "failing" the target number creates additional complications based on how badly the roll fails... basically on a scale of 1-10. This is proving to be a very fast-driving story system because there are no real log-jams... everything the players do progresses their own goals, but also creates spontaneous complications that ratchet up the tension and threat of the situation: even though every action they take is a step towards resolving a goal. "yes and/but" narrative design here has the team trying any crazy ideas that can lead to amazing successes and ridiculous complications. It's a good frame for any game if you can work it into your GM prep.
23:10 great, great point, Teos That's part of the reason PbtA games don't have those sort of adventures, but more like adventure seed with a scenario and lots of provocative questions to ask the players. That's how these types of games are meant to be played, IMHO. I've been using Daggeheart with some dungeon starters from Dungeon World. The system works quite well with that
Unrelated to video 5e rules question: I’ve just read vecna eve of ruin chapter 1 and they mention a character with thieves tools can make a dexterity (sleight of hand) check to open a lock (e.g. C5, C11, C20 - I even turned to a random page and found it again in V10 page 122). Wait a minute, have I been playing thieves tools wrong all this time? Why would a rogue be proficient with thieves tools if all you need is to have them and be proficient in sleight of hand (which is applicable in more situations)? I’ve checked the PHB and it doesn’t say much of use. The DMG (pg103 on ‘locked doors’) says “…pick the lock with a successful dexterity check (doing so requires thieves tools and proficiency in their use).” This seems to go against the VEoR text. Has the ruling changed? Am I missing something here? A quick internet search seems to confirm the DMG, not VEoR. Oh great sages please help. P.s. XGE expands tool use but doesn’t help with this question.
This may be a nod to 2024 core rules changes? We've seen some changes to wording in recent products that may indicate a change is coming. 5E has often been unclear on whether checks should sometimes require tools or whether they should be options. Thieves' tools have often seemed to be required, and checks in adventures often back that up. But even the rules on disarming traps are really unclear as to the exact mix. It feels like a suggestion. We would generally look at this as options to tweak based on the particular situation. A lock may be something you decide requires thieves' tools (makes sense) but maybe allow a check at disadvantage if no tool is present? But we will have to see how 2024 presents this.
Great show! Daggerheart has me wanting to come back to it again and again because I know I have a long way to go to master running it (that is why I am here learning). Devious on their part ;-)
21:10 yes, they are good practices for GMing, but the real meat behind the GM moves might not be obvious for D&D players getting into Daggeheart or Dungeon World because those games are played within the same genre sandbox (classic fantasy). The GM moves also codify the proper genre expectations, which end up generating the expected fictional outcome (aka the type of story). This might be taken for granted when dealing with a fantasy RPG (Daggeheart) after having played another fantasy RPG for years (D&D). But when you play a very different genre with no experience (eg, a game about the angst of teenage super heroes, like in Masks), then the real "meat", function, or purpose of GM moves comes into full effect, allowing a new GM (or new to the genre) to cook a satisfying story like a master chef. Because that's the end goal of PbtA games: a satisfying story. And that's the goal of the PbtA GM: to facilitate that story.
Great points. Perhaps because we design adventures often, we tend to place a lot of emphasis on the adventures and how they drive play. Blade Runner and Fate adventures are very different from D&D. So, it's a bit surprising that the Daggerheart adventures feel like D&D adventures.
There are so many moving pieces in this game, it really does seem like a lot to keep track of for the GM.
Right? But, once we get good at it, the payoff may be significant.
I completely agree with @treantmonkstemple. My tiny GM brain would rather dump processing power into making up cool things for players to do rather than tracking game resources.
What I'd love to see is someone taking an iconic or very cinematic action scene from a show or movie (the fight in Balin's tomb or the Turtles invading the gang members' garage from Mutant Mayhem or Batman vs Scarecrow's cronies and the Bat-imitators from The Dark Knight, any of the trailer scent sights from the Witcher - scenes that mix combat fighting with stunt action) and run through it as if it was a ttrpg, showing how "players" and "gm" might use the system rules to create that scene. Because most everyone wants combat to feel less like playing checkers and more like a movie action scene.
That's a great idea! Maybe Teos will take this up for a blog entry once his DMing series gets to encounters...
10:00 - I"ve been playtesting an ability check-driven narrative game that always fails forward: where you will always have at least a partial success, but "failing" the target number creates additional complications based on how badly the roll fails... basically on a scale of 1-10.
This is proving to be a very fast-driving story system because there are no real log-jams... everything the players do progresses their own goals, but also creates spontaneous complications that ratchet up the tension and threat of the situation: even though every action they take is a step towards resolving a goal.
"yes and/but" narrative design here has the team trying any crazy ideas that can lead to amazing successes and ridiculous complications. It's a good frame for any game if you can work it into your GM prep.
That's great to hear! Removing those log-jams in design is really rewarding.
23:10 great, great point, Teos
That's part of the reason PbtA games don't have those sort of adventures, but more like adventure seed with a scenario and lots of provocative questions to ask the players. That's how these types of games are meant to be played, IMHO.
I've been using Daggeheart with some dungeon starters from Dungeon World. The system works quite well with that
Oh, very cool! It would be neat to compare those adventures. Will have to do that.
Unrelated to video 5e rules question: I’ve just read vecna eve of ruin chapter 1 and they mention a character with thieves tools can make a dexterity (sleight of hand) check to open a lock (e.g. C5, C11, C20 - I even turned to a random page and found it again in V10 page 122). Wait a minute, have I been playing thieves tools wrong all this time? Why would a rogue be proficient with thieves tools if all you need is to have them and be proficient in sleight of hand (which is applicable in more situations)? I’ve checked the PHB and it doesn’t say much of use. The DMG (pg103 on ‘locked doors’) says “…pick the lock with a successful dexterity check (doing so requires thieves tools and proficiency in their use).” This seems to go against the VEoR text. Has the ruling changed? Am I missing something here? A quick internet search seems to confirm the DMG, not VEoR. Oh great sages please help. P.s. XGE expands tool use but doesn’t help with this question.
This may be a nod to 2024 core rules changes? We've seen some changes to wording in recent products that may indicate a change is coming. 5E has often been unclear on whether checks should sometimes require tools or whether they should be options. Thieves' tools have often seemed to be required, and checks in adventures often back that up. But even the rules on disarming traps are really unclear as to the exact mix. It feels like a suggestion.
We would generally look at this as options to tweak based on the particular situation. A lock may be something you decide requires thieves' tools (makes sense) but maybe allow a check at disadvantage if no tool is present? But we will have to see how 2024 presents this.
Great show! Daggerheart has me wanting to come back to it again and again because I know I have a long way to go to master running it (that is why I am here learning). Devious on their part ;-)
Agreed!
Thank you so much for this! I’m loving Daggerheart’s action tracker so much. I’ve hacked it into my D&D 4e game and it’s been amazing!
We can see the action tracker working for 4E. Awesome!
21:10 yes, they are good practices for GMing, but the real meat behind the GM moves might not be obvious for D&D players getting into Daggeheart or Dungeon World because those games are played within the same genre sandbox (classic fantasy).
The GM moves also codify the proper genre expectations, which end up generating the expected fictional outcome (aka the type of story). This might be taken for granted when dealing with a fantasy RPG (Daggeheart) after having played another fantasy RPG for years (D&D). But when you play a very different genre with no experience (eg, a game about the angst of teenage super heroes, like in Masks), then the real "meat", function, or purpose of GM moves comes into full effect, allowing a new GM (or new to the genre) to cook a satisfying story like a master chef. Because that's the end goal of PbtA games: a satisfying story. And that's the goal of the PbtA GM: to facilitate that story.
Great points. Perhaps because we design adventures often, we tend to place a lot of emphasis on the adventures and how they drive play. Blade Runner and Fate adventures are very different from D&D. So, it's a bit surprising that the Daggerheart adventures feel like D&D adventures.