Anyone played this? How similar is it to Blades in the Dark?
http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/207823/Dusk-City-Outlaws-Core-Game
Dunno anything about Blades in the Dark, but I did get a chance to play Dusk City Outlaws at a game store a couple of weeks back. A guy had a PDF copy from the kickstart and ran it for a couple of us. It was an interesting game but I'm not sure we understood how to use the dice correctly. It was very story-telling in design, so if you don't like story games you wouldn't probably like this one.
The basic concept as it was explained to me was that you get a "job" to do (ours was to steal a necklace from the body of a dead woman who was going to be buried soon) and you had so many time-units (turns) to make a plan, gather intel, and then do the job. Most of our group was pretty clueless about exactly what intel we were supposed to be gathering as the game seemed to be almost a sandbox of opportunities, but the GM offered enough hints that we managed to put together some sort of plan. A play which went FUBAR almost instantly and we started to "wing it" in order to somehow salvage what we could of the job. Fun and frustrating at the same time, but I would consider giving it a go again sometime because I'm pretty sure I would do better the second time.
Where we had dice issues came toward the end. We had split the party with each of us trying to escape on our own, and each followed by a number of guards. Then things broke down something like this: I'm followed by 4 guards so I try to "stealth" and roll a success, so now it's 3 guards. Then I try again and fail, so the GM can throw an obstacle at me and he chooses that 3 more guards join the hunt so now it's 6 guards. I try to convince them to let me go since I don't have the necklace and roll a success, so now it's 5 guards. We had three characters doing this sort of thing at the end and this exciting chase scene morphed into a tedious dice-rolling contest. I would need to read the rules to see what went wrong, but the concept seemed solid even if the execution fell flat. My guess is that guards are mooks in groups of 3, so the total number of dice rolls would be significantly less. Something like that.
Also, the final version is supposed to have city maps and such, but the one we played was all B&W papers off of a printer and we didn't get to see any maps. Maps would have made planning a lot easier, I think, as they would have made the thing more visual.
Quote from: finarvyn;994536The basic concept as it was explained to me was that you get a "job" to do (ours was to steal a necklace from the body of a dead woman who was going to be buried soon) and you had so many time-units (turns) to make a plan, gather intel, and then do the job. Most of our group was pretty clueless about exactly what intel we were supposed to be gathering as the game seemed to be almost a sandbox of opportunities, but the GM offered enough hints that we managed to put together some sort of plan. A play which went FUBAR almost instantly and we started to "wing it" in order to somehow salvage what we could of the job. Fun and frustrating at the same time, but I would consider giving it a go again sometime because I'm pretty sure I would do better the second time.
So far, so Blades-y.
Quote from: finarvyn;994536Where we had dice issues came toward the end. We had split the party with each of us trying to escape on our own, and each followed by a number of guards. Then things broke down something like this: I'm followed by 4 guards so I try to "stealth" and roll a success, so now it's 3 guards. Then I try again and fail, so the GM can throw an obstacle at me and he chooses that 3 more guards join the hunt so now it's 6 guards. I try to convince them to let me go since I don't have the necklace and roll a success, so now it's 5 guards. We had three characters doing this sort of thing at the end and this exciting chase scene morphed into a tedious dice-rolling contest. I would need to read the rules to see what went wrong, but the concept seemed solid even if the execution fell flat. My guess is that guards are mooks in groups of 3, so the total number of dice rolls would be significantly less. Something like that.
This sounds awful. It sounds like the GM was treating the individual guards as a kind of hit points. How do you successfully lose one pursuer through stealth but not the others? Were the pursuers mute? And how do you go from running to persuading to (presumably) running again? It sounds more like a board game than an RPG.
I'm still not sure how I feel about BitD, but its mechanics are a lot better for situations like these. Of course, maybe you had a GM issue and not a rules issue.
It has a cool name if nothing else. Sounds like an old sexy noir B-movie title, which is always a good thing. Makes me think of this:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1661[/ATTACH]
I have both, have run a ton of BitD and am reading DCO. Even without having played DCO I can tell you that a major difference is one of tone. If Blades is Taboo (dark as fuck and really violent and gritty) DCO would be Leverage (lighter, more episodic and "caper-y"). Both have a distinct charm, IMO. I too initially felt they occupied the same gaming space, but now I don't feel they do.
Another difference is gameplay. In Blades you're building a crew which is (hopefully) becoming an institution. In DCO you're already part of an institution. It may seem as if the latter wouldn't be as cool due to lack of factional ownership, but there's something fun and almost freeing about being an operative as opposed to control. You can "climb the ladder" in DCO, it's simply less a "being da boss" thing (there are some pretty neat "retirement plans" for PCs).
The second part of the gameplay difference is that in Blades you don't plan. You cut to the action and the blow of unexpected obstacles is handled through flashbacks. In DCO planning is key and, from everything I've read and watched, the fun part. It sucks that finarvyn's experience was one of frustration. After the rotating guard stuff they dealt with, I'll be re-reading those rules*!
One bit I really like..no, love...about DCO is the presentation. Don't get me wrong, Blades has a fantastic layout and the art has that Hellboy look to it, which is awesome (the character sheets are pure brilliance, too), but the Disney-esque art of DCO, the stunning set pieces and the layout all meld into visuals that I can see bursting into motion.
It sounds to me like this is a Storygame, not an RPG. The discussion talks about "shared storytelling duties". That's not an RPG.
Quote from: RPGPundit;995371It sounds to me like this is a Storygame, not an RPG. The discussion talks about "shared storytelling duties". That's not an RPG.
Fuck off, the only time that has been mentioned in the discussion is by you, here.
You can watch people play this game on youtube. There is a GM, and there are players. THere are no 'shared storytelling duties', wahtever that means, so cool your jets you daft fascist
Quote from: RPGPundit;995371It sounds to me like this is a Storygame, not an RPG. The discussion talks about "shared storytelling duties". That's not an RPG.
You take on a Role and Play a Game. Yep. It's an RPG. :)
Quote from: Biscuitician;995400Fuck off, the only time that has been mentioned in the discussion is by you, here.
You can watch people play this game on youtube. There is a GM, and there are players. THere are 'shared storytelling duties', wahtever that means, so cool your jets you daft fascist
It's really neat how each player gets to take the lead in their own scene. A framed chunk of time that you can be as creative as you like is such a cool concept. It's like having a super-detailed combat turn without excluding other players.
Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;995412It's really neat how each player gets to take the lead in their own scene. A framed chunk of time that you can be as creative as you like is such a cool concept. It's like having a super-detailed combat turn without excluding other players.
Yeah, that part was fun. Each person got a turn in the spotlight with the others filling supplementary roles.
The comment about DCO being like the TV show LEVERAGE is spot on, or at least that's the mental image I had while playing.
As to the "is it an RPG" question, I'd say that it is. Certainly there is a lot of choice, very "sandbox" like in places, but there is a clear dice mechanic designed to resolve things and not just GM fiat. Whether or not we played it right is another question, but there was a mechanic in place.
Which part exactly was hanging you up so much? I'd like to look into it and hopefully help, as well as possibly head any problems off. :)
There's an interview... (https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-mind-behind-dusk-city-outlaws-tells-us-about-the-in-1792693226)
Quote from: InterviewWould you describe DCO as more storytelling driven or mechanically driven?
I would say it's more narratively driven, but more than that I'd say it's more player-driven. The players are responsible for setting the scene a lot of the time, and take on some of the responsibility of worldbuilding when the Judge calls for it. They might name or describe places and NPCs, letting them share in the creation of the ongoing story in a more active way. Additionally, all characters have access to some game mechanics that let them directly impact the narrative. For example, there's one specialty, the Mole, that is sort of the "master of disguise" infiltrator and spy. If the Mole isn't taking part in a scene, at any time that player can pick a background character, someone inconsequential, and say, "That guy? That guy is actually me in disguise," and then jump into the scene. There are a fair number of mechanics like that, which let the players bend the rules of traditional, chronological narratives to make something cool happen. They can't do it all the time, though, so when it pops up, it's impactful.
Sounds like players are taking direct control of the storytelling if not the setting itself in specific situations. Might not be lot's of narrative control, but what there is, is major. Like the author said above: "They can't do it all the time, though, so when it pops up, it's impactful."
Quote from: CRKrueger;995597There's an interview... (https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-mind-behind-dusk-city-outlaws-tells-us-about-the-in-1792693226)
Sounds like players are taking direct control of the storytelling if not the setting itself in specific situations. Might not be lot's of narrative control, but what there is, is major. Like the author said above: "They can't do it all the time, though, so when it pops up, it's impactful."
A lot of the world-building is in the form of something like this:
GM: You're the lead on this legwork scene. Tell me about it.
Player: Locke's going to the docks to visit his contact and find out what the Blooded are up to.
GM: Sounds great. Who's your contact? How do you know them? Where are they?
Player: Her name's Slick Sally and she's a whore at the Silver Sails brothel at the docks. I know her because, um, I..."hired" her a few times and eventually, a solid "business friendship" sprang up.
GM: Ha! "Hired", eh? Hmmm...anyway, what's the Silver Sails like? Anything of note in or around it?
Player: Actually, yes...
And so forth. One thing to keep in mind is that while the players can get creative, the GM can veto outlandish or inappropriate ideas ("Your father's the Watch Commander? I don't think that's true..."). I've found such player-driven stuff to be valued greatly by players and they become more invested in the setting because they have a little pride in ownership. They helped make a piece of the world and that's special. One thing players need to respect is the setting and fiction, such as not pushing to have your father be the Commander of the Watch or something that could negatively impact everyone's enjoyment of the game.
Yeah, it's a storytelling game. Moved.
Quote from: RPGPundit;996168Yeah, it's a storytelling game. Moved.
And still no explanation is given. Just random paranoia because...reasons
I guess the correct way to design a game like this, so as to be a 'proper' rpg, would be for the GM (and he alone) to create and write up the ENTIRE city, it's population, establishments, institutions and history, all before hand. Then hand all that over to every player and have them learn it all so as to ensure that ONLY the gm creates this information and not, you know, the PC to whom it's pertinent.
Collaborative world building with the players? In-game? On this site?
ARE YOU MAD!
Quote from: Biscuitician;996187And still no explanation is given. Just random paranoia because...reasons
I guess the correct way to design a game like this, so as to be a 'proper' rpg, would be for the GM (and he alone) to create and write up the ENTIRE city, it's population, establishments, institutions and history, all before hand. Then hand all that over to every player and have them learn it all so as to ensure that ONLY the gm creates this information and not, you know, the PC to whom it's pertinent.
That would be called a book or movie. :) Man, Pundit's gone full-on bonkers. I feel for whoever games with the dude.
Eh, pretty clear shared OOC narration far outside choices and decisions the character would be making.
Being someone who likes their roleplaying blended with a healthy helping of storytelling obviously means your definition of "Roleplaying Games" might differ with someone who doesn't (although Mankcam, someone who loves narrative rpgs, is being shockingly honest about just how different they are over on RPGpub.) Your personal preferences being different, and your definitions being different, doesn't mean Pundit just randomly rolled a die or picked this game out of a hat. The Main Forum is for "traditional pen-and-paper roleplaying games". You might argue the definition of roleplaying to mean "includes any roleplaying at all", but you really gotta stretch considering the hobby's history, to include a game with OOC narrative authority mechanics to be "traditional".
Quote from: HorusArisen;996196Collaborative world building with the players? In-game? On this site?
ARE YOU MAD!
You can do it, just not in the "traditional roleplaying game" forum. :D
This is honestly just pathetic
Quote from: RPGPundit;996168Yeah, it's a storytelling game. Moved.
LOL what an idiot.
I ate pork for breakfast and decided it was a vegetable, now I'm vegetarian
Quote from: Biscuitician;996451I ate pork for breakfast and decided it was a vegetable, now I'm vegetarian
Mmm bacon *salivates*
Quote from: CRKrueger;996399Eh, pretty clear shared OOC narration far outside choices and decisions the character would be making.
Being someone who likes their roleplaying blended with a healthy helping of storytelling obviously means your definition of "Roleplaying Games" might differ with someone who doesn't (although Mankcam, someone who loves narrative rpgs, is being shockingly honest about just how different they are over on RPGpub.) Your personal preferences being different, and your definitions being different, doesn't mean Pundit just randomly rolled a die or picked this game out of a hat. The Main Forum is for "traditional pen-and-paper roleplaying games". You might argue the definition of roleplaying to mean "includes any roleplaying at all", but you really gotta stretch considering the hobby's history, to include a game with OOC narrative authority mechanics to be "traditional".
It's bullshit and you know it. DCO uses pen, paper, you play a role and it's a game. Can we not discuss
Blades in the Dark there? FFG's
Star Wars? Anything made by MCG? He may not
like these certain games, but they are most assuredly, RPGs. Pundit's simply being ridiculous. Basically, anything he doesn't like isn't an RPG and he pops into threads to just shit on them.
He needs to make a "Traditional Pen & Paper RPG" forum and then define it. Or not. Ultimately, he can do what he likes here and I can leave.
Quote from: Biscuitician;996451I ate pork for breakfast and decided it was a vegetable, now I'm vegetarian
I looked back over this thread and just saw that. Priceless. :)
Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;996474He needs to make a "Traditional Pen & Paper RPG" forum and then define it. Or not. Ultimately, he can do what he likes here and I can leave.
He did make a Traditional Pen and Paper RPG forum, that's the main forum, read the description. He has been defining what a traditional roleplaying game is since he took over the place and one in which the characters get to narrate the story or inject into the setting "See that guy over in the corner? That's me, I'm spying." or where players get to set up their own scenes, ain't it. Never has been.
His definition of Traditional Roleplaying Game doesn't fit yours, and it
is based on certain criteria, like it or not, admit it or not. In the end it's his site. If discussing this game in the Other Games Forum crosses the line for you, do what you gotta do.
Quote from: Edgewise;994569This sounds awful. It sounds like the GM was treating the individual guards as a kind of hit points. How do you successfully lose one pursuer through stealth but not the others? Were the pursuers mute? And how do you go from running to persuading to (presumably) running again? It sounds more like a board game than an RPG.
I'm still not sure how I feel about BitD, but its mechanics are a lot better for situations like these. Of course, maybe you had a GM issue and not a rules issue.
Finarvyn, I'd like to see some followup when you check the rules, as I'm with Edgewise on being confused and/or disliking the mooks-as-hitpoints approach.
Quote from: CRKrueger;996484He did make a Traditional Pen and Paper RPG forum, that's the main forum, read the description. He has been defining what a traditional roleplaying game is since he took over the place and one in which the characters get to narrate the story or inject into the setting "See that guy over in the corner? That's me, I'm spying." or where players get to set up their own scenes, ain't it. Never has been.
His definition of Traditional Roleplaying Game doesn't fit yours, and it is based on certain criteria, like it or not, admit it or not. In the end it's his site. If discussing this game in the Other Games Forum crosses the line for you, do what you gotta do.
Dusk City Outlaws is a traditional roleplaying game.
THat's all there is to it.
Moaning that because a player is encouraged to create some background on the fly is as obnoxious as it is stupid. Are players meant to come to the table with their character fully formed now? Are they meant to have a complex index of EVERYTHING AND EVERYONE they've EVER MET DID SAID VISITED AND THOUGHT? All codified for the GM, and presumably everyone else, to learn and study prioer to play?
Because that's what you're advocating when you endorse his stupidity.
Quote from: CRKrueger;996484He did make a Traditional Pen and Paper RPG forum, that's the main forum, read the description. He has been defining what a traditional roleplaying game is since he took over the place and one in which the characters get to narrate the story or inject into the setting "See that guy over in the corner? That's me, I'm spying." or where players get to set up their own scenes, ain't it. Never has been.
His definition of Traditional Roleplaying Game doesn't fit yours, and it is based on certain criteria, like it or not, admit it or not. In the end it's his site. If discussing this game in the Other Games Forum crosses the line for you, do what you gotta do.
His criteria for what's an RPG and what isn't is nonsensical. He trolls his own forums like a bratty kid and plays silly, passive-aggressive games about, well, games. I agree 100% that it's his house and he can do what he pleases. I will, however, call bullshit when I see it.
Quote from: Tod13;996499Finarvyn, I'd like to see some followup when you check the rules, as I'm with Edgewise on being confused and/or disliking the mooks-as-hitpoints approach.
Mooks
are hit points, in a sense, but only in combat. Granted, I'm not an expert and could be wrong but in the case of losing a squad of pursuing City Watch patrolmen, a successful roll is all that's needed. Now, if they were hot on your heels there might be Disadvantage dice which, depending on your roll, complicate things, but by my understanding of the rules having to "defeat" each one through stealth seems off.
Here's a snippet of attacks on minions:
"Minions are enemies that appear in large numbers and are usually faceless goons in a scene: a band of street toughs, a contingent of the City Watch, the crew of a pirate ship, and so forth. Minions group up into squads, and a squad has a size rating equal to the number of minions in that squad. A group of ten members of the City Watch is a size 10 squad. A squad counts as a single opponent in a scene. Rather than depleting luck, any successful attack against the squad reduces its size by 1. Additionally, if a player rolls any boons along with the attack roll, the player can reduce the squad's size by 1 for each boon spent to do so. When a player character attacks a squad, the player should be encouraged to describe how he or she is taking out one or more members of this group in a cinematic fashion. When it attacks, a squad's damage is equal to five times its size, and it has a 50% chance of success on the roll."
Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;996552Mooks are hit points, in a sense, but only in combat. Granted, I'm not an expert and could be wrong but in the case of losing a squad of pursuing City Watch patrolmen, a successful roll is all that's needed. Now, if they were hot on your heels there might be Disadvantage dice which, depending on your roll, complicate things, but by my understanding of the rules having to "defeat" each one through stealth seems off.
OK, so the example of a stealth roll only removing one guard is an "anti-example"? LOL That makes sense. Thanks for the response!
Quote from: Tod13;996612OK, so the example of a stealth roll only removing one guard is an "anti-example"? LOL That makes sense. Thanks for the response!
You're welcome! FWIW, my interpretation is that defeating a minion per success is strictly combat. Minions don't have luck, which is a pretty big deal*. Also, if you're successful but only lose one out of five guards, you haven't been successful. To unpack things a bit, I'd look at the scene and see if Advantage or Challenge** dice might apply. Are there 10 guards chasing you through their barracks? You might get some Challenge dice. Is it at night and you have a headstart from above them on the rooftops? Advantage dice. Are they chasing you through a crowded market with shoulder-to-shoulder people? Maybe both types. The system's got strong but flexible ideas on levels of challenge and opposition. I'm eager to master it.
*As an aside, I really like how you can give tougher obstacles a Luck rating, such as a tough safe having 200 Luck. Or a burned-down house might have a key hidden behind a loose stone in the fireplace and it's 100 Luck worth of debris to access it.
**It's Challenge not Disadvantage dice. Apologies! :)
Can we discuss chess in the rpg forum? I made a saving throw when my king was in check.
Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;996540His criteria for what's an RPG and what isn't is nonsensical. He trolls his own forums like a bratty kid and plays silly, passive-aggressive games about, well, games. I agree 100% that it's his house and he can do what he pleases. I will, however, call bullshit when I see it.
And I will call bullshit on the "nonsensical" aspect. You love narrative mechanics and games that have them, that doesn't change what they are, what they do, or how they relate to games that don't have narrative control mechanics. You can put your hands up, cover your ears and yell "Nyah nyah nyah" til the cows come home, doesn't change the fact that a game with such strong narrative control mechanics is hardly traditional, the only people to claim something like that, would be someone for who no game would ever be classified as "non-traditional", because they are opposed to the definition even existing.
Quote from: CRKrueger;996639And I will call bullshit on the "nonsensical" aspect. You love narrative mechanics and games that have them, that doesn't change what they are, what they do, or how they relate to games that don't have narrative control mechanics. You can put your hands up, cover your ears and yell "Nyah nyah nyah" til the cows come home, doesn't change the fact that a game with such strong narrative control mechanics is hardly traditional, the only people to claim something like that, would be someone for who no game would ever be classified as "non-traditional", because they are opposed to the definition even existing.
It's not an argument about what's traditional, it's the stupid statement that
Dusk City Outlaws isn't a roleplaying game, coupled with Pundit's childish trolling and head-scratching "standards". Stick to the issue.
Quote from: Biscuitician;996629Can we discuss chess in the rpg forum? I made a saving throw when my king was in check.
Oh, shit! I just realized this is the RPG Site! A forum for discussing roleplaying games! How is this thread even possible?! :eek:
Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;996669It's not an argument about what's traditional, it's the stupid statement that Dusk City Outlaws isn't a roleplaying game, coupled with Pundit's childish trolling and head-scratching "standards". Stick to the issue.
That's fine. And your posts of about DCO are engaging and informative. But...
As CRKrueger explained, Pundit's classification is very simple. Games that give narrative control to the players are storytelling games/story-games. Pundit, for reasons, classifies these games as different from "RPGs". Join one of the oft-appearing threads discussing story-games, narrative mechanics, and RPGs. If you don't make it an ax-grinder on this particular game, it'll be fine. There was one in June and one at the beginning of August. So, it sounds like we're due for one in October.
Based on the forum description that says
See "Other Games" forum below for story-games, Pundit moved the thread to the correct sub-forum. He did it in typical Pundit "style", but I'd rather have that than the 1984 Big Brother tactics of TBP where people and posts disappear without explanation and even asking questions gets you banned. Pundit is abrasive at times, but he's honest.
Moving the post was not a big deal in my opinion. As I mentioned elsewhere, I usually like this sub-forum better, as fewer of the threads descend into the predictable never-ending back and forth between the usual suspects. Yes, Pundit was in-your-face about moving it. But all he basically said, really, was "according to the site rules and how the site classifies games, this thread belongs in a different category, so I'm moving it." Not really a big deal in those terms.
AC, personally, I'd stick with just talking about the game. You explain it well and interestingly, enough to get several of us looking at it and considering some of the mechanics in a positive light. Don't take Pundit's reactions personally or worry about other people's definitions of RPG, or wargame, or story-game. All that does in this thread is distract from learning about DCO and getting people interested in it.
Back to the topic at hand:
Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;996552Mooks are hit points, in a sense, but only in combat.
How does this work in practice? By, "work" I mean, "how do players like this and react to it?"
In my RPG game, I initially had "normal monsters" being "mooks" with 1HP each, and all weapons did 1HP of damage. Boss Monsters had multiple hit points.
But my players really disliked it. It made monsters just feel hack-and-slashy. They love dungeon crawls as one component of the game, but really, really want smarter monsters they can talk to and interact with, and the "mob" approach to monsters gave the wrong feel to the game for them.
Quote from: Tod13;996809That's fine. And your posts of about DCO are engaging and informative. But...
As CRKrueger explained, Pundit's classification is very simple. Games that give narrative control to the players are storytelling games/story-games. Pundit, for reasons, classifies these games as different from "RPGs". Join one of the oft-appearing threads discussing story-games, narrative mechanics, and RPGs. If you don't make it an ax-grinder on this particular game, it'll be fine. There was one in June and one at the beginning of August. So, it sounds like we're due for one in October.
Based on the forum description that says See "Other Games" forum below for story-games, Pundit moved the thread to the correct sub-forum. He did it in typical Pundit "style", but I'd rather have that than the 1984 Big Brother tactics of TBP where people and posts disappear without explanation and even asking questions gets you banned. Pundit is abrasive at times, but he's honest.
Moving the post was not a big deal in my opinion. As I mentioned elsewhere, I usually like this sub-forum better, as fewer of the threads descend into the predictable never-ending back and forth between the usual suspects. Yes, Pundit was in-your-face about moving it. But all he basically said, really, was "according to the site rules and how the site classifies games, this thread belongs in a different category, so I'm moving it." Not really a big deal in those terms.
AC, personally, I'd stick with just talking about the game. You explain it well and interestingly, enough to get several of us looking at it and considering some of the mechanics in a positive light. Don't take Pundit's reactions personally or worry about other people's definitions of RPG, or wargame, or story-game. All that does in this thread is distract from learning about DCO and getting people interested in it.
It would be great if my posts helped spur interest. DCO is really growing on me. You are correct and that should be the focus.
Quote from: Tod13;996811Back to the topic at hand:
How does this work in practice? By, "work" I mean, "how do players like this and react to it?"
In my RPG game, I initially had "normal monsters" being "mooks" with 1HP each, and all weapons did 1HP of damage. Boss Monsters had multiple hit points.
But my players really disliked it. It made monsters just feel hack-and-slashy. They love dungeon crawls as one component of the game, but really, really want smarter monsters they can talk to and interact with, and the "mob" approach to monsters gave the wrong feel to the game for them.
To be clear, I haven't played it yet. I've read a lot of it and have a pretty solid grasp of it. I've watched it being played and have "test run" segments by myself to better GM it. It's similar to other games I have run and I can say that my players have really enjoyed "mook rules". However, I feel a game should facilitate minions or it can feel off. FFG's
Star Wars uses minions, for example, and it feels good. I tried using my own minion rules in 5e and it felt cheap. It wasn't bad, just...off. Maybe I could've made it work, I just didn't fiddle with it much. Did any of that help?
Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;996853To be clear, I haven't played it yet. I've read a lot of it and have a pretty solid grasp of it. I've watched it being played and have "test run" segments by myself to better GM it. It's similar to other games I have run and I can say that my players have really enjoyed "mook rules". However, I feel a game should facilitate minions or it can feel off. FFG's Star Wars uses minions, for example, and it feels good. I tried using my own minion rules in 5e and it felt cheap. It wasn't bad, just...off. Maybe I could've made it work, I just didn't fiddle with it much. Did any of that help?
A bit. I think it may just be what the players expect/want in terms of enemies. For my players, potential "mooks" could end up being long-term NPCs or someone they spend a lot time talking/dealing with. Thanks!
In the case of a mook who jumps into the spotlight and matters more, they're no longer a mook. For example, your Vesper Alchemist, Archimedes Finch, is being chased by a squad from the City Watch. You're cornered by them and a melee ensues. You don't kill any of them, whittling their numbers down to one: the squad leader, Corporal Glastow. After some breathless banter, you manage to defeat the Corporal, but just barely. A well-timed smoke bomb and you scurry up a wall, Glastow's roared promise of vengeance echoing in the night...
Now, when you next meet the Corporal (and as a GM you most definitely will!) he most assuredly will not be a mook. He will have a Luck rating and is now a minor villain. It's simply a matter of fictional importance. Mook rules a great ways to showcase the derring-do of PCs without engaging with more granular, robust opposition who are generally more pivotal to the story.
Rules like these are, to me, fantastic. It's less of a burden on the GM and gives PCs a chance to engage in genre-appropriate fights. I will respect that such a take isn't good for every game. A game such as, say WH40KRP, might benefit load-wise from mook rules, but if you want to capture the grim and gritty of the setting, such rules might not work. But in the case of DCO it's a gem.
Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;996907
Rules like these are, to me, fantastic. It's less of a burden on the GM and gives PCs a chance to engage in genre-appropriate fights. I will respect that such a take isn't good for every game. A game such as, say WH40KRP, might benefit load-wise from mook rules, but if you want to capture the grim and gritty of the setting, such rules might not work. But in the case of DCO it's a gem.
I think you've hit it. It is a setting thing. I think the mook rules are great for something like Barbarians of Lemuria. But I think, like your attempt to use them in 5e, if you're running a "D&D setting, even if you aren't using D&D" game, mooks just feel off.
I think mook rules would work in Eberron, at least the way I see its level of pulpy goodness. In this case I think it's setting-appropriate, but has mechanical dissonance. In the more dark and deadly Forgotten Realms (again, the way I picture that setting) mooks would seem out of place.
It seems you're somewhat interested in DCO. Is there any other stuff you want to know?
Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;996941
It seems you're somewhat interested in DCO. Is there any other stuff you want to know?
I'm good for now. Thanks! :-)
What's the word on hardcopies of this thing? I see preorders up on the site.
Last time I checked, Rodney mentioned it dropping sometime in December. If you preorder it now, the PDF materials are available and you can run it, just without the cards and such (the cards are simply to facilitate ease of play, such as tracking Day/Night segments as well as very slick NPC cards).