Strike! is better than Dungeon World.

>>48551186
Oh good, the two most toxic kinds of shills on the board can fight each other.

Anyone have PDFs for Strike! or DW play books?

File: 1439749313339.jpg (60KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 500x375px

Dungeon World is better than Strike!.

>>48551224
I was wondering if anyone is going to reply to this thread at all.

Here's Strike!:
http://www.uploadmb.com/dw.php?id=1449846116

DW playbooks should be up for free somewhere IIRC.

>>48551186
They're very different games.

Are either of them OSR? No? Then they're both shite.

>>48551310
DW actually has OSR trappings/inspirations.

Strike! is merely extremely streamlined.

What is Strike!?

>>48551310
>every game that isn't OSR is shit
Come on, now. That's true for dungeon crawl games, but not very kind of RPG.

>>48551186
I actually agree. One can actually be called a game. I just don't like Strike's challenge system and the focus on tactical combat.

>>48552100
Well, you could check for yourself, the download link is just a few posts back.

Alternatively, read a review you can find after 5 minutes of google, like this:
http://fuckyeahdnd.tumblr.com/post/133344712112/strike-review

A bit too positive for my tastes, but it explains it okay.

>>48551406
>DW actually has OSR trappings/inspirations.
midkek

>>48552800
How is it not?

I mean, the only thing making it distinctly not OSR is actually having a unified mechanic.

>>48552213
But these are dungeon crawl games, and not OSR. Therefore, garbage.

>>48555101
>>48552213
>Implying OSR are objective best for dungeon crawl games
Oh I'm laffin over here with my OQ2.

>>48555101
Strike! is not a dungeoncrawl game.

Admittedly, it has a module for that, I think based on Darkest Dungeons.

I keep hearing people come in to random recommendation threads and be all like

>I recommend Strike!

Followed immediately by

>Stop shilling Strike!

I'd like to see some actual honest discussion of this game.

>>48555253
Strike! is a generic RPG like Savage Worlds, FATE and GURPS, but is leaning mostly towards the gamist side of things instead of simulation (it's still got a fair bit of narration).

It's got a very simple core mechanic, and a lot of optional systems. It is best fit for games where you play a group that gets into squad sized combat, and doesn't give much about realism (it uses some mechanics and was tested by running an XCOM game for example, but you could easily run D&D inspired or or shounen/mecha stuff as well), as that's the most well supported module.

I really should be sleeping soon but I like discussing the game; it hits most of the things I want out of my RPG, and strips away everything else (although maybe it strips away a bit too much at parts).

>>48551186
I disagree, and since >>48555253 makes a good point about honest discussion of the system, here's why.

Strike! has no reasonable way of representing basic character attributes. For example, let's say I want my character to be a strong, athletic type. In other games this could be represented by a high Strength and/or Constitution score (or equivalent stats). In Strike!, the only ways to portray this are through Advances and Skills, and they a piss-poor job. Skills only have one 'rank' by default and are incredibly specific; therefore my character would have to have a Skill for each specific aspect of his strength and athleticism (Jumping, Climbing, Swimming, Keeping my Balance, Holding my Ground, Gripping Things, etc). Advances work like non-combat classes, therefore if my character is a Brute (the Kit representing physical accomplishment) in addition to having to similarly take similarly narrow abilities enabling what aspects of strength my character has, I can only have ONE other Advance EVER that isn't related to being strong. So I could not, for example, ever get two Spy abilities such as being Fearless or having a License to Kill. There's no reasonable, functional way to say "My character's a big, strong guy" and represent that through the mechanics. That's a deal-breaker for me.

Strike! has an incredibly poor layout. Making a character requires that you read the entire book cover to cover and take notes. The 'Creating a Character' section on page 16 is poorly worded and only gives you the non-combat component of characters. The only alphabetized section in the ENTIRE book is the list of Roles, and I think that's a fluke rather than being intentional. Text is spaced and formatted inconsistently and the colours and design of powers and abilities are garish, bordering on atrocious. The artwork is generally sub-par. Overall this book looks awful its content is placed horrendously, and even I (somewhat of a veteran) was confused making a character.

>>48555738
>I can only have ONE other Advance EVER that isn't related to being strong.

That's actually false. You can have only one advance from another kit... without taking the base advance of that kit. You could take the Spy kit base advance and then take any number of spy abilities.

Also, because the skill list is variable, you could very well have a character who has a skill called "athletics", in that game probably the rest of the characters would have similarly wide application skills.

There's also a a multi-step mastery system so you have untrained-novice-trained-master levels, which could be used for the traditional 6 stats IIRC.

That said... yeah, the out of combat part is a bit too much of a departure from the classics and a worked out stat system would be nice.

Stop shilling Strike!

Why does /tg/ keep shilling Strike!?

They're both inferior to Barbarians of Lemuria Mythic.

File: 1461443420370.jpg (21KB, 300x368px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 300x368px

>>48555738
>My character's a big, strong guy

By whose standards?

File: stomp.webm (645KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

645KB, 1280x720px

>Strike! credits

>Development
>Gabriel Butche, Yuri Kavalerchik, Jacob Saunders, Earth Seraph Edna
>These people checked my work for balance and clarity, contributed ideas, and gave advice when I needed it, which was often.

>Earth Seraph Edna

Jeez, that seraph really gets around, doesn't she?

>>48551186
>Strike! is better than Dungeon World.

X is better than Y

That's it? That's your selling point? Goddamn, Strike! must be absolute shit from cover to cover.

File: Ivj82nF.png (447KB, 800x3382px) Image search: [Google]

447KB, 800x3382px

>>48557407
>>48557407
Why does he wear the mask?

>>48557492
[electric guitar intensifies]

I've heard of strike as a retroclone of 4e.
What differences does it make from 4e? What does it improve on and what does it do worse than 4e?

>>48555893
Specific skills trump variable skills so if you want to actually be GOOD at anything, you need the specific skill for it. Kinda like the difference between someone who does a mixture of jogging, weights, and cardio versus a trained marathon runner. There's no easy way to say, for example, "My character's got a Strength of 17, so I know how much stronger than an average person he is. That Orc has 17 Strength as well, that makes them about equal, and that Giant with 24 Strength is seriously strong." It creates baselines for comparison so that characters can evaluate themselves against the world.

A game where you can't do that is... shockingly bad in my opinion.

>>48557407
As above, compared to the baseline or average values of humans (or other races that don't have attribute adjustments from human baseline).

>>48551258
>DW playbooks should be up for free somewhere IIRC.
On a garbage bin, yeah.

File: funposting.gif (32KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 250x250px

>>48562450

>>48561322
>Kinda like the difference between someone who does a mixture of jogging, weights, and cardio versus a trained marathon runner.

That's kinda the point? If you are a generic strongman, someone who only focused his training on one strongman thing will be better at that thing. Like arm-wrestling champion guy being better at arm wrestling than strongman guy. How is that actually bad?

>A game where you can't do that is... shockingly bad in my opinion.

If you can't reduct all strength related things into a single stat a game is shockingly bad?

>>48561322
The point in Strike is that it's unimportant.
Being +2 faster or +3 smarter or whatever?
Irrelevant except for flavour. It adds colour to the scene and your roleplaying, and that's it.

If you are playing Strike, you are doing it because you want mechanically interesting team combat and conflict. The generic system bit isn't for all games - it's to hold the game together, until you get to more combat.

Just think of it like Power Rangers or whatever. The plot is there, but character individual skills almost never come up. The plot is there to give an excuse for fighting this week's monsters.

>>48555253
It's an IP scrubbed D&D 4e heartbreaker with storygame stuff lifted from PbtA games shoved in sideways.

That’s pretty much it: you get shill bait set because it's some dude's heartbreaker and isn't a major system, so obviously anyone talking about it is a shill.

>>48564339
Well I suppose it covers a niche (and it's not like they all have to be MY niche), but that sounds like it's missing critical parts of an RPG. I'll have fun setting up a combat scene, but I don't think I've ever run a game where I had specific combat scenes I wanted to use, then made up a story to get there. That sort of thinking just doesn't really make sense on a motivational level to me. I have a hard time imagining it would really draw out many people who actually want to run something in it

Which does sort of explain to me why suggestions of Strike! are usually met with "Stop shilling Strike!"

>>48564481
Tactical combat is fun, and roleplaying out a character is fun. That's really all there is to it.

Literally all there is that's 'required' in an RPG is "at some point, you are acting as a character". That's it. If you want, Snakes and Ladders can be an RPG. Chess can be an RPG. Battleship can be an RPG. Nobody's stopping you from roleplaying in any of those games.

For whatever it's worth, the author's own intent in making the game is basically the following:
1. They wanted to have lighthearted DnD-style adventures.
2. They wanted that combat to include meaningful, well-balanced combat in the vein of DnD4e.
3. They wanted prep to take as little time as possible. They wanted to be able to pull an encounter out of thing air - but ALSO have that encounter still be interesting.

So the goal isn't "think of two or three fights for a session, and build a story around it".
It's "have a fun story, and have interesting fights in it".
That's the game tagline, anyway. 'Tactical combat and heedless adventure'.

Now, I have read the game and not played it. While I think it LOOKS good, I can't offer any real opinion on how it works in practice

>>48564481
You don't have to set up a combat scene ahead of time and then have the players run into it tho.

Improvising a combat in Strike! is fast as fuck. I mean, if you want to make a "final boss" style encounter you probably should put in some time, but otherwise you can have the players go around and do whatever, and then break out the minis when the time comes. You could easily play it D&D sandbox style.

>>48564481
I already replied but basically, really, it and Dungeon World approach a similar style (improvisational light adventure) in different ways.

Dungeon World gives strong, strict procedures on 'general' play, but its support for combat is to treat it just like noncombat (I'm not saying this is a bad thing), and making it interesting is all in the GM's hands.

Strike is pretty loose outside of combat and almost entirely in the GM's hands, but gives plenty of support for making combat interesting when it does happen.

Which one is 'better' for fantasy adventure rests entirely on what the group likes.

>>48564444

Well, sorta. It's a lot less movement based than 4e as it did away with the traditional grid, which some 4e players don't like.

>>48564555
>Well, sorta. It's a lot less movement based than 4e as it did away with the traditional grid, which some 4e players don't like.

You are mixing it up with 13th Age, Strike! is heavily grid and movement based (or maybe that's the joke?).

>>48564577

I might be, yes. The two overlap more than a bit.

>>48564582
Eh, I wouldn't say so.

13th Age is really more of a modified 3.5e with some 4e-isms and narrativisms tacked on. Both 4e and Strike are both more balanced than 13th Age.

>>48557520
The combat mechanics and role/class system are pretty great, but the rest of the game is a clusterfuck that squanders everything it has going for it. The book didn't have an editor and it shows.

Hopefully there will be, at some point, a revised edition. I'll probably find that to be worth playing, but as of now it's not really worth the time to organize a game.

>>48564722
Eh, we have been playing for a while and the general consensus is "good enough" for out of combat stuff and pretty good in combat. It really, really needs an editor tho.

>>48551241

Bojack, you're only saying that because you're dead inside and believe that no one will ever love you.

>>48557383
>Why does /tg/ keep shilling Strike!?
I lurk every day and had never heard of until this thread.

>>48565306
I'm not sure why shilling is bad.
Like, indie game developers aren't paying anyone to go to fucking 4chan and point people to their games.

People are just exciting about games they like and want to point other people to them in case it meets their needs. Is that so bad?

We should encourage as many different RPGs as possible.

>>48565332
Shilling is correctly used when there's a hidden agenda (i.e. "I'm getting paid for it") behind making a recommendation. >>48557383 keeps misusing for comedic (?) effect.

>>48565692
But literally nobody is getting paid for it except the one author?

File: 57c249e2a02dbd226b9a143ddb424fef.jpg (212KB, 1541x1105px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 1541x1105px

I am listed in the development credits of Strike!, although I had the least input on it by far due to having contacted Mr. McGarva very late. I do not receive any percentage of the profits at all.

I think that Strike!'s combat is very well-refined and that the combat side of character creation is brilliant, but I wholly denounce all of the noncombat mechanics except for Team Conflict and chases.
The probabilities associated with "generic" unskilled and skill rolls are distressingly weighted towards harsh Twists as per the math in page 202.
The guidelines for valid skills are terribly vague and made even more confusing by the sample backgrounds which include broad skills like "Stealth" and "Bluffing" or "Stealth" and "Social Engineering."
Tricks and Fallbacks trivialize a shocking amount of noncombat challenges unless the GM demands skill rolls from the players on a very frequent basis. I have been a player in a Strike! game for thirteen sessions now, and the GM only calls for skill rolls only occasionally; a steady flow of Action Points plus Tricks and Fallbacks ensures that the party cannot truly fail most noncombat tasks unless they forget about such resources.
Asymmetrical skill acquisition between PCs essentially ensures that luckier characters will be gifted with much more skills than others. In the game above, where we make skill rolls only infrequently (and blaze through most with Tricks and Fallbacks), my character has learned four skills in total, while another player's character has acquired none at all.

I would rewrite the entirety of Strike!'s noncombat if I could.

>>48565332
Let's not forget roll20 got its start shilling here

>>48566471
>are distressingly weighted towards harsh Twists

Twists are only as harsh as the GM makes them tho.

Which of course has the problem that the "math" just doesn't work but it's still not as harsh.

File: 75a5c9cabcec8b3ad286e57359626f27.jpg (224KB, 989x1400px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 989x1400px

>>48567291

It is either the "math" is not working as intended or the example Twists are too light. Either way, there is a disagreement within the writing, and something needs to be fixed.

Some more Strike! related: Does anyone know anything about the wilderness exploration splat or the new classes/roles in the work?

The mention of there being an extra role made me raise an eyebrow.

>>48551186
How do you feel about Skub?

I actually don't think that Strike is a bad idea at all. If someone wants a 4e clone beat em up then I am sure that it is a great option, especially with the dice system and fixed math from the start, along with the generic system.

>>48551258
On first glance, Strike! looks like BloodBowl mushed with 4e D&D.

File: 479cbd815afa1820afb8d88bf5a6efba.jpg (922KB, 1400x990px) Image search: [Google]

922KB, 1400x990px

>>48568467

I am in the development credits of Strike!, and yet I had never even heard of this supplement until you had brought it to my attention. I will be purchasing it and examining it.

That said, note that the vehicles supplement already had various remixed roles that could be taken upon player characters, so a new role is not particularly new.

>>48564722
>>48564990
A friend of a friend had some success by bolting on a different, more complete super-light RPG for noncombat stuff...but I totally forget which one. Maybe Risus?

It's not terribly important, anyways, just go with whichever you find most satisfying for noncombat and it should make things at least more cogent. Fate Accelerated would work a treat.

File: a7620f51025b56c80d532c9999498956.png (4MB, 2118x3000px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 2118x3000px

>>48568467
>>48569935

I have had a look at this supplement, and it is 22 pages of GM-only material with no new player material, let alone player material. That said, it is decent GM material for any setting, and there are even rules for founding and running a town here.

In the core rules, I cannot see why wilderness survival would be of any concern to most parties given the existence of Tricks and Fallbacks. Even a level 1 character has two tricks, and one of those can be the ranger background's "Always find a way back to civilization, creating a Success with a Bonus," which is far better than most parties would be able to manage by fumbling about with their own skill rolls. This supplement tries to rectify that by expanding upon team conflicts for wilderness survival and introducing new methods through which to resolve such challenges... which does not solve the underlying issues with Tricks and Fallbacks anyway, but it is a valiant effort nonetheless.

>>48570133
I'm going to assume here that when wilderness survival would be an important part of the game you would simply not allow tricks that bypass it to be taken at character creation.

Scaling the skills to the campaign is a good idea anyway.

Strike! 2e when?

>>48557383
Is there a bot for this?

http://archive.4plebs.org/tg/search/text/Stop%20shilling%20Strike%20Why%20does%20%2Ftg%2F%20keep%20shilling%20Strike/page/1/

>>48573971
No, it's a weak attempt at memery through continual repetition.

Do you really think someone would make a bot that can reliably get though 4chan's captchas and then waste it responding to occasional posts about a heartbreaker system? Are you legitimately that retarded?

>>48574078
No it was joke at the expense of someone going to the effort of forcing the meme.

>>48565306

Lurk more then. Seriously this shit gets posted all the fucking time.

>>48554790

>That moment when a guy stops replying because he has no argument

o m8 am i laffin

>>48564208
>If you can't reduct all strength related things into a single stat a game is shockingly bad?
A game where you don't have baseline values for character attributes, or any way to evaluate effectiveness outside of a binary "Skilled/Unskilled" metric, is shockingly bad.

>>48564339
>Being +2 faster or +3 smarter or whatever? Irrelevant except for flavour.
If Grobnak the Barbarian and Elvindor the Wizard are attempting to solve a sudoku-style puzzle in a dungeon, and neither of them has a skill related to puzzle-solving, they're both equally capable of succeeding. This is despite Grobnak being dumber than a post and Elvindor having a genius-level intellect. I'm not obsessed with verisimilitude, far from it, but stripping characters down to 5 or 6 narrow distinctions robs them of so much that makes them fundamentally competent (or incompetent).

And to both of you, I know about the optional rules for additional levels to skills and they do not fix this fundamental problem.

File: 389295ac4ff27add99a64a60d2b404f9.png (1MB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1000x1000px

>>48577638

I do not think "single-axis" skill systems are in any way egregious. It is perfectly feasible to have a game wherein all noncombat tasks fall under a set of "single-axis" skills which still manage to cover raw physique, athleticism, logical thinking, and so on and so forth. Fate Core, for all its problems, does exactly this with Physique (feats of raw strength and endurance) and Will (feats of mental resistance and pure logic and memory), for example.

I do disagree with the entirety of Strike!'s noncombat systems for other reasons though, such as the ones I list here >>48566471.

>>48564577
To bad 13th age is so shit you would do better to mod 3.5 on your own then waste time on it.

>>48551186
I tried to read Strike, I really did. But the formatting and the art is so awful I just couldn't get through it.

File: NOPEcat.gif (498KB, 320x172px) Image search: [Google]

498KB, 320x172px

>>48579005
>better to mod 3.5 on your own

This is never the answer.

>>48578921
>I do not think "single-axis" skill systems are in any way egregious. It is perfectly feasible to have a game wherein all noncombat tasks fall under a set of "single-axis" skills which still manage to cover raw physique, athleticism, logical thinking, and so on and so forth. Fate Core, for all its problems, does exactly this with Physique (feats of raw strength and endurance) and Will (feats of mental resistance and pure logic and memory), for example.

I completely disagree with you here Touhou (assuming that's you). Reducing characters to being Trained/Untrained at something and having no other methods of distinguishing their competency at task resolution is bullshit. Learning the skill 1 in 6 attempts is likewise completely ridiculous. If my barbarian is a might warrior who can 'Arm Wrestle', the noodle-armed Wizard in the party shouldn't become equally competent after competing against him once.

The Strike! skill system completely glosses over natural physical or mental ability, long-term training, innate talent, and cultural and social background. Anyone can get good at anything in two or three attempts, with no investiture of time or resources, no formal training, and despite marked physical or mental deficiencies in that area.

Not even kidding here, I'd rather use Lasers and Feelings for my non-combat rules than what Strike's offering. Effectively two Attributes, two merits from two different lists that grant a bonus to certain circumstances, and that's it. I can make an Engineer in Laser and Feelings and not have to take the Coding, Encryption and Security, Repairing Tech, Modifying Tech, Disabling Tech, History of Modern Technology, Operating Hardware, Hacking, Counter-Hacking, Alien Technology (one each for every different major alien species), and Delegating to Other Engineers skills.

Strike! might have functional (if garish) combat rules but the way characters are represented and built is utter nonsense.

>>48551186
Who and what now?

File: bd0b400374d8f4a739f2ce8722657b8a.jpg (735KB, 894x1188px) Image search: [Google]

735KB, 894x1188px

>>48579987

This is never what I was saying at all.

When I mean "single-axis skill systems," I mean skill systems that have no base attributes and only skills.

You can have a "single-axis skill system" with more granularity than "skilled and unskilled," and indeed, there are many single-axis systems that have traditional ratings for such skills.

I never said that the skill-learning subsystem was a good thing either. As I have said in >>48566471, all it is done in the Strike! game I have been a player in is let my character learn four new skills over the course of the game, while another character has acquired precisely zero new skills.

File: Bait thread dispenser.jpg (16KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 300x300px

>>48580004

Two systems that seems to trigger the autists, and serve as useful bait, packaged into one handy double bait thread.

>>48580358
When you say 'single-axis' it's unclear whether you're talking about breadth or depth. Since the comment I made was primarily complaining about a lack of metric for average/baseline character aptitude, I presumed that was what you were referencing as your axis.

Skill-only systems can work but aside from those like FATE, where Skills might as well be your Attributes since they cover all activities sand aspects of your character, I find they are lackluster and generally poor at making any kind of comparison between characters. Attribute-based systems can, through a few numbers, give you a very good idea of a character's all-around aptitude, and adding a handful of specific skills they're good in gives them depth while keeping that useful breadth. Attributes are also excellent at informing things such as physicality and mannerisms, or otherwise serve as an excellent jumping-off point. They're exceptionally useful for both GMs describing their world and players understanding and codifying the environment.

>>48577638
>This is despite Grobnak being dumber than a post and Elvindor having a genius-level intellect.

Then Elvindor probably should have skills, fallbacks or tricks that help with intelligence related challenges, while Grobnak should have a complication related to being dumb.

File: c0a89cdc78aacd05895d05ffa3454f4f.jpg (516KB, 1000x678px) Image search: [Google]

516KB, 1000x678px

>>48580812

Using the term "single-axis" would not make sense if it was referring to "depth," because skill system A with two levels of proficiency and skill system B with ten levels of proficiency do not have any difference in the number of axes.

Strike! could use a single-axis skill system. Even three levels of proficiency would do, so long as they covered most possible tasks.

>>48579110
But anon, I am running modded 3.5 in this community.

Deedlit is better than Pirotess.

>>48583990
Well, yeah. Deedlit isn't dead.

>>48583698
I thought single-axis systems meant realistic WW2 games, as opposed to those fucking fasces-fellating multi-axis systems.

Why is this thread still on? Everyone knows Dungeon World is shit both as a D&D clone and a PbtA stance, Strike is too much focused at what it wants to do and PbtA crowd is 100% fag tumblrqueer circlejerk.

Let this shit die.

I bought Dungeon World yesterday, because it was cheap and the shop had it.

I haven't really read about it yet. But what should I expect? I love the traditional dungeoneering world, with oozes and cloakers and whatnot.

Is it easy to DM?

>>48585131
>Is it easy to DM?
Say whatever you have in mind and let your players roll for any fuck they "trigger". Eventually they will kill themselves over a roll of 4 and everyone will quit this "game".

>>48555174
>OQ2
What the fuck is OQ?

>>48585238
Open Quest.

>>48585244
Thanks!

In that case...
>>48555174
>runequest knockoff
>better than OSR
Full pleb.

>>48585213
>>48585131
Is it really that bad? I am confused, I figured it was a decent roleplaying game, despite eschewing combat.

>>48585423
>eschewing combat
Good joke.

The reason DW is bad is because it tries to re-add tactical combat in a system that had simplified it out, among other D&Disms that don't fit.

>>48585455
Dang. So, what would be a good system for heavy roleplaying in a dungeoneering environment (underdark, bioluminescent mushrooms, cloakers, mimics, cults, treasure troves, dragons, etc.).

I've done 3.5, PF and 5E and am looking to try something new.

>>48584023
That's why Kardis gave us necromancy.

>>48585520

Don't listen to the memesters, Dungeon World is a good game.
Also, DW does not "add in tactical combat," it uses the Apocalypse Engine for dramatic, cinematic combat, which is a very different thing. And IMO, does a good job of it. The system's not without its flaws (the steading rules take a lot of work to deal with considering that they don't seem to do anything for me, for one thing) it's still miles better than the triggered bitches on /tg/ give it credit for.

>>48585520
Just the options I know of, other people can chime in.

Still using the *world system, there's Fellowship, but that's married to a concept that would take a bit of work to send underground.

There's Torchbearer, which uses the Burning Wheel system (which is good as long as you don't get too far into the subsystems)

Some of the OSR systems can be fairly light, as long as you're willing to handle the old-school element of it.

With some work, Reign could be used for it. The reason I say it might need work is because I'm not sure if there's a good "generic fantasy" splat to apply to it.

GURPSGURPSGURPSGURPSGURPSGURPSGURPS

>>48585658
>In my opinion is a good game, and that's what matters. And no, I have nothing else to add.

>>48585664
I'm an idiot when it comes to these. I've heard of Burning Wheel. I'll check out Torchbearer.

What is OSR? As for GURPS, I thought that was a super mechanically heavy system, focussed more on simulationism than narrativism.

I'm all for simulationism, but I figured I'd try something new given my difficulty DMing it without my players getting bored.

>>48585791
GURPS was the obligatory meme response.

OSR is Old School R(something), that emulates pre-3e D&D. Some of them are harder to get into than others, but the OSR thread here is a good place to ask for advice for which one you'd like.
>>48576248

Everything else should be in the PDF thread.
>>48529222

File: 10322653_235356410144357_4112822249523453099_n.jpg (15KB, 304x395px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 304x395px

>>48585791
>>48585664
>>48585658
>>48585520
>>48585455
>Post con't didn't increase

>>48585791

OSR is the Old School Revival, a movement to bring back early (Pre WotC) D&D. It's big on tactical dungeon crawling and resource management/tracking stuff, with crazy high lethality. It suits some players and campaigns really well.

Can I play a shota kitsune summoner better in Dungeon World or Strike!?

>>48585872
Strike, and you can even dual wield.

>>48585849
>>48585826
Ugh. That doesn't sound like what I am shooting for. I like the idea of old school DnD, but I'm sure in practice I'd end up bogged and it would end up fucked.

Thanks though! I'll download Torchbearer right now.

Honestly, I don't know what I'm doing. I just want to branch out.

>>48585883
Why?

>>48586368
Because you can't dual wield on Dungeon World.

>>48586380
Actually, dual wielding in DW has more mechanical impact than in Strike!.

Assuming the equipment you are dual wielding is not special in some way.

>>48585887
>I'd end up bogged
What? With rules? Just don't play AD&D and you're fine. Swords & Wizardry Core would be perfect. It's a clone of 0e, which is not rules-heavy at all.

Ask in the OSR general thread that was linked before, for them to tell you about S&W Core (and clarify you've never played OSR before but it was recommended to you).

>>48586380

>memes

When you dual wield in Dungeon World, you gain the effect of the tags on both weapons. If that's not enough to satisfy you, use a multiclass move or two to take the Viper moves from the Ranger class, which specifically upgrade dual wielding.

File: smug.jpg (16KB, 480x378px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 480x378px

>>48586566
>having classes in a narrative game
And who do you think you are you tell me what I can and can't be in my game? To strictly define what I can be?

File: Carl.jpg (12KB, 320x220px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 320x220px

>>48586582

>>48586582
The man with the rulebook.

Probably the GM, if he's in charge of the system.

>>48586604
Sounds like a faggot.

>>48586604
>Narrative game with a GM
Garbage

>>48586395
Strike! has no rules for weapons at all.

>>48586648
Which is why I say Dual Wielding has more mechanical impact in DW. In Strike! it's pure fluff.

Although, it has guidelines for equipment, which could be weapons.

A book with items (and other player options) is in the works, I expect that'll have some weapons as well.

>>48586901
>In Strike! it's pure fluff.

Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

>>48586916
It's a great thing. Narrative systems are supposed to be blank canvases. Dungeon World is a fucking coloring book - no, worse than that, a paint by numbers kit!

>>48586940
>you deal as much damage with your fists as a greatsword
Why is this allowed?

>>48586916
Depends on how you look at it.

>>48586940
I don't think it's as bad as you give it credit for.

>>48586996
Because DW assumes the user is more important than the weapon used.

Although I think you do get some sort of penalty for being disarmed, but I may be wrong, or it may be up to the DM. You don't get any of your wepon's tags, so that's a drawback in itself.

>>48586996
>Why is this allowed?
It's just lazyness from the devs, and also a way to cater to their vaporware audience: they'll see people playing D&D on movies or series, want to try, get frightened at the sight of the PHB with "I have to read that all!?" and jump on DW bandwagon because "all you have to know is on the character sheet".

Simple lazy design.

>>48587051
>>48587061
Great, so can we all agree that any system that lets fists do as much damage as a greatsword by default is shit?

>>48587051
>Although I think you do get some sort of penalty for being disarmed, but I may be wrong, or it may be up to the DM. You don't get any of your wepon's tags, so that's a drawback in itself.

This. If your enemy has a range of "reach" and you only have "hand," you're boned. He can hit you and you can't reach to hit him back.
OD&D didn't differentiate weapon damages way back when, either. Gygax added different damages for different weapons at the suggestion of Rob Kuntz, who later felt it was a mistake, since by then everybody had to wield a longsword or they'd suck in one way or another.

>>48586996
Because verisimilitude just isn't a goal of these kind of games. I don't get it either but I stopped getting so angry when I really realized folks into stuff like that are playing for different reasons than I do.

>>48587101
>since by then everybody had to wield a longsword or they'd suck in one way or another.
This is realistic though.

>>48587101
I want to say it was mentzer who did an interesting take on it in an indie game he made back in the late 80's.
You use thaco, and ever 1 under your thaco is still a hit but reduces dice size by 1 while higher attacks increase dice size for every 2 above.

It makes higher dice weapons do more damage on low rolls/against high AC enemies but lower dice will do about as much damage on a high attack character or against unarmored people. That combined with weapon speed makes the weapons a bit more interesting imo.

>>48587127
>Because verisimilitude just isn't a goal of these kind of games.

A fighter having higher damage dice for daggers and shortswords than a rogue shows the difference between their level of martial training better than any number of proficiency tables ever could.

At least for me, it's better for my versimilitude that instead of weapons only being differentiated by the damage they do, that relies on the character using them, and the weapon's important stats are actually based around what makes it different, its strengths and weaknesses, not 3 arbitrary numbers and a damage type.

>>48587206
Well yeah. I've always dug games where say "axes have a bonus to shield breaking" and other things like that to differentiate weapons.
Usually it's best to say roll all 1 handed longswords(rapier, broadsword, arming sword) into one generic type of sword or else embrace having reams of crunch.

But I like the idea of a martial getting bonuses to using various weapons that are a bit more involved. I also like the idea of gear affecting someones playstyle more than just changing damage dice. It's sorta like how the wizard can change their spell loadout for the day in a way.

File: 4338c20170c951fa108102b72cab41b3.jpg (3MB, 1818x1999px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1818x1999px

For those interested in playtesting several new Strike! classes and a new role, here they are:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/87648110/StrikeExpansionPlaytestMaterial.pdf

It would have been helpful to know of the existence of this a little over a week ago.

>>48551258
Having read through it all... It looks really fun but underwhelming. That 1d6 roll is really rough. 35-50% failure on all rolls is just a bad deal for all rolls in a tactical system.

There's a lot more to like here than DW in my opinion, but DW has better GM advice so it's hard to say what is best.

>>48588865
>35-50% failure on all rolls is just a bad deal for all rolls in a tactical system.

This is why the miss tokens are in (it's an easy to miss rule), and why positioning and combining powers for advantage is really important for fights.

That said, I'd have preferred a d10 for a bit more granularity, plus somewhat easier maths.

>>48588944
Wow. Easy to miss rule is understating it, but this game does desperately need a rewrite of the same rules - and a character sheet that isn't eye rape.

Ok, that makes things a lot better but you still have a 17% chance of just being fucked. I would have stuck to the d20, most gamers have it around and the scales are easy to know. Were they just worried 2d6 would make it too AW like?

>>48589730
2d6 is an optional rule, but makes the math harder. On a dX, a +1 is equal to +1/X%. On a 2d6 it's more difficult to calculate exactly how much a bonus is worth.

I think with both miss tokens and advantage a meager 17% is pretty alright. I'd tie the strike to enemy crits (but maybe only from non stooge/goon enemies) instead of 1s, because I hate anything that makes the players think they fumbled. Miss triggers are bad enough.

File: 631ed57a10f9d0acd18efa47784d05ca.png (2MB, 1000x1405px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1000x1405px

>>48589876

I personally find the Strike on a natural 1 to be fine, but my main issue with Strike!'s combat is the concessions after combat. This is one area wherein Mr. McGarva and I had clashed considerably and never agreed.

Mr. McGarva thinks that, regardless of the genre, it is interesting for characters to suffer from considerable consequences after every battle, up to and including the entire battle having been a waste of time because the bad guy absconded at no cost to the villain.

I think that this is appropriate only for certain genres, and that, by default, the consequences for entering battle should not be so vicious.

To wit: if each member of the party has been knocked unconscious at some point in the battle, even if they later get back up by Rallying as part of a heroic comeback, that is a guaranteed *pyrrhic victory* for the party that ensures that whatever they were fighting for is lost to them. Even if the party rolls perfectly throughout the entire battle avoids accruing any Strikes just for rolling a 1 on a 1d6, that party is still doomed to a pyrrhic victory.

All of this is on top of injury Conditions to add insult to, well, injury.

I had pointed this out to Mr. McGarva, and they think that this is interesting for storytelling. I vehemently disagreed.

Anyone else find it weird that a baitthread so obvious it has smuganimuelf.jpg in the op, about DW which is back as easiest derail, and Strike! which never got past the shilling, actually turned into a thread that's mostly about people discussing the mechanics, merits and flaws of both systems as well as other similar games without much trolling?

>>48590353

It's like the trolls got bored and left.

>>48590353
Strike! shills barely ever upload PDFs

>>48590936
See >>48587623

>>48590353
When you ignore trolls and people trying to derail a thread with shitposting, then they go away bored.

It's just that most of the time, people are too spergy or retarded to stop taking the bait.

>>48564444
4e is better tho

>>48564518
>. They wanted prep to take as little time as possible. They wanted to be able to pull an encounter out of thing air - but ALSO have that encounter still be interesting.

This is what doomed it.

>>48591592
>>48590429
It's because if any of them post a pasta a mod will butthurtly ban them for a day, simple as that.

>>48555253

So I decided to finally look at it. Holy fuck I can't believe people put money into this. Did the kickstarter not get an editor?

I was kind of interested,but fuckin a thats hard to read.

The presentation of classes is a real mess too.

>>48592284

>implying the mods aren't supposed to delete that shit
>implying that enforcing the rules is "butthurt"
>being this butthurt

>>48591632
As someone who has only read both, I am 100% more likely to try Strike! over 4e. Working within 200 pages is just so much easier even if 4e looks like it is laid out better.

>>48585265
What makes your DnD OSR better than Runequest's equivalent to OSR?

>>48594025

Since this is a troll thread, I'll say it's because Runequest was the birth of the shitty fantasy heartbreaker, a clunky mess of houseruled D&D-only-better-guys! with terrible "gritty" crit systems that crippled your character (unless you're magic) and worse, caster supremacy so bad that they quickly gave up and just folded it into the setting and now everybody's magic because if you played a not-magic guy in 1e Runequest, you could eat shit for all you were worth.
The system couldn't make up its mind if it wanted to be dirty and "realistic" or crazy high-flying superheroes, and ended up doing both poorly. It only survived because it was the first shitty fantasy heartbreaker, so a lot of the folks that would have made their own terrible not-D&D instead jumped on the Runequest bandwagon.

>>48594290
Too bad RQ6 is GOAT, so your opinion about 1e doesn't matter.

>>48551186
What are the best DW play books? Not the "best" optimized ones, but some unique and fun ones. I was thinking about playing a dashing hero with a splash of bard.

>>48587623
Some good shit in there. I especially like the squire.

File: pic1218032.png (73KB, 414x447px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 414x447px

>>48586916
As long as we're in the 4e sphere of things, I definitely prefer the Gamma World 7e route of having broad but distinct categories, with the exact weapon left to the player to define.
Followed by Strike's fluff-only approach, trailed at the end by the big fat cumbersome system of 4e's equipment. Now, it's not really *bad* per se, but I definitely consider it overdesigned. Plus it ended up opening the doors for a great deal of unintended rules collisions.

>>48601551

Was there ever anything really wrong with the D&D approach of "if you use x weaon you do YdZ damage"?

>>48601678
IOt made damage increases reliant on character feats, stats, and not nearly as much on class abilities, meaning you had to expend resources on improving your damage that casters get for free.

>>48601678
Not necessarily, though it can really depend on the edition.
Where things can start to fall apart is a bit further into a game where they can be left behind because of class progression scaling things at different paces or in different ways (like >>48601729
suggests), or one or two weapons can end up far and away the most superior option.

File: 196a5cd236f4870a2c06c62fdf1b56ac.jpg (452KB, 800x1131px) Image search: [Google]

452KB, 800x1131px

>>48598315

Good, but deeply unpolished. I practically have pages' worth of corrections and criticisms to give to the author by this point.

>>48601551
Gamma World 7E is a fantastic game, and anything that reminds me of it is a good thing.

>>48601551
This is a pretty good weapons table.

>>48590353
I'm probably jinxing it, but it's par for course for /tg/.

Troll threads get discussion, discussion threads get trolled.

File: e4875a4161be39ba147b7f19961e0323.jpg (1001KB, 1324x909px) Image search: [Google]

1001KB, 1324x909px

>>48587623

Here is the latest version of the evoker:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JC3ZZCfSfIfiYVqA50saZ5YnNDWXwc-JJREHIbWE36g/pub