Doctor Who RPG 2E Announced

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
I have an odd sort of regret of not having ever picked up the version of the corebook with Capaldi on the cover. It isn't because of any fondness of that Doctor. I had given up on watching new-Who long before he took over the sonic screwdriver. It's more just OCD completism kicking in and I'm missing a cover variant. Plus, I think that one is probably the best cover Cubicle 7 has done for one of the Who books.
 
I have an odd sort of regret of not having ever picked up the version of the corebook with Capaldi on the cover. It isn't because of any fondness of that Doctor. I had given up on watching new-Who long before he took over the sonic screwdriver. It's more just OCD completism kicking in and I'm missing a cover variant. Plus, I think that one is probably the best cover Cubicle 7 has done for one of the Who books.
Probably get it cheaper on eBay now.
 
The more I look at the cover for the 2e standard version, the more I think it's really bad.

This isn't due to any kind of dislike of the lady Doctor. I've never watched an episode with her. Like I said, I gave up on new-Who long before that point.

It's just that it strikes me as a bad cover.

To me, it's sort of an ugly color with the dominance of that sickly sort of orange. Then there's the characters, which seem like they were slapped on the page via a spoon ala a mound of mashed potatoes. It's like, here's this sort of sickly orange background, and let's slap a dollop of Who characters on there in a glop. I realize this kind of thing is more or less what many of the book covers look like, particularly the individual Doctor worldbooks, but here the execution is particularly styleless.

Also, I know it's Who and you gotta have Daleks, but did it really need two in the glob? Wasn't there another thing that could be stuck in that glob? Was it just that the scoop had two Daleks in it so what can you do?

Yes, I'm being harsh and nitpicky. I'm not as negative about this whole thing as I sound.
 
So, here's my thought about the limited edition box and book.

The box looks like a pretty good idea for a limited. I personally don't like the door lids, but I get it. It makes sense given what they're doing.

I don't like the book inside. That cover is just... yuck. Once again, I understand the intent, but I don't like the end result, and that's largely to do with what the cover is trying to faithfully replicate.

What I think would be better is maybe a cardstock insert with the picture of the interior of the TARDIS. Underneath that would be the book, perhaps with a special cover featuring all 13+ Doctors.
Unfortunately, the BBC only cares about the 60+ year legacy of Doctor Who occasionally (usually just for anniversaries), and everything else must be about the now/current Doctor.

It's sort of telling that the cover has the only one worthwhile new monster (those bat/boar witness guys) and that fella covered in teeth (because he was featured twice, I guess). The rest is monsters from previous years. I say this simply because they made such a song and dance about how the 13th Doctor's first season would feature only all-new, all-different monsters, which... Weren't terribly good. So quick; here's some Daleks, Judoon and Cybermen!
 
Also, I know it's Who and you gotta have Daleks, but did it really need two in the glob? Wasn't there another thing that could be stuck in that glob? Was it just that the scoop had two Daleks in it so what can you do?
Either...

A. None of the other monsters in her run have been terribly good?

B. Everyone loves Daleks!

...The answer is, of course, "Yes."

Actually, thinking about it. I'd have put a Zygon on there. You can't prove to me that there weren't any Zygons in these seasons after all.
 
What’s the basic mechanic for this game? Is it multiple dice?
 
It's sort of telling that the cover has the only one worthwhile new monster (those bat/boar witness guys) and that fella covered in teeth (because he was featured twice, I guess). The rest is monsters from previous years. I say this simply because they made such a song and dance about how the 13th Doctor's first season would feature only all-new, all-different monsters, which... Weren't terribly good. So quick; here's some Daleks, Judoon and Cybermen!
Especially as Tim was one particular individual who has been entirely defeated and isn't a threat any more. I'd like to have seen Krasko, but that's a criticism I have of the TV series as well - he would have made a fun more mundane foil for the Doctor, without the theatrics of the Master.

Actually, why isn't the Master on that cover?
 
Especially as Tim was one particular individual who has been entirely defeated and isn't a threat any more. I'd like to have seen Krasko, but that's a criticism I have of the TV series as well - he would have made a fun more mundane foil for the Doctor, without the theatrics of the Master.

Actually, why isn't the Master on that cover?
Yeah, I was surprised the Master didn't make it on. Too many human (looking) figures already with the Doctor's gaggle of meaningless companions.

Krasko... Eh, while I agree in concept that "just this guy, y'know" would be a refreshing recurring foe, it would have to less one-dimensional than Krasko. His entire character bio read: "racism is the best". Subtlety, thy name is Chibnall.
 
It's £80! Eighty quid to get the new edition with a non-shit cover. No chance.

I'll wait 'til the next print run with the 14th Doctor on it.
 
Anyone know what the real differences are between printings? I discovered (or was reminded) there was a second box set with Matt Smith era imagery produced. So, that means at minimum there were the following versions:

David Tennant box
Matt Smith box
Tennant/Smith "limited" hardcover
Peter Capaldi hardcover

Are the boxes the same other than the images? From what I saw, it looks like they have the same general function of contents if not the exact graphics. Are the hardcovers the same way? Just trading out imagery for different iterations of the Doctor?
 
The original Tennant box had a series of adventures that were different in the Smith box. I don't think there's any adventures in the LE HC, but mine is packed up right now.

Each has different aliens covered, though there's some constants (Daleks, cybermen, etc.). Stats for companions are based around those of the Doctor featured only (no Captain Jack or Rose in the Matt Smith box).

Otherwise, the rules system is exactly the same from what I can tell. Admittedly, I've never sat and done a point-by-point comparison, but I never noticed any differences from the three versions I owned.
 
The rules are unchanged throughout. A few new traits were added to the core book over time, otherwise, no real differences. The Capaldi hardcover reads better than the earlier boxed sets.
 
OK, I looked up the example which gave me the interpretation I came away with.

The example is on page 57 and 58 of the 10th doctor set players book. It's in one of the "sidebar" example blocks. The example features Mikey trying to talk to a Cyberman and the Cyberman trying to shoot Mikey. The exact example occurs in the other versions of the book, just with a different companion substituted.

The example is presenting a scenario where the Companion is talking and the Cyberman is shooting. It directly states that this is a straight contested roll between the Companion's Convince skill and the Cyberman's Marksman skill. The winner of the contest gets to do their action.

This is in a description of Contested Rolls. It is actually before the Action Round initiative system gets introduced. The "Who Goes First" question is answered starting in the second column of page 58. On page 59, it also indicates that contested rolls are used to resist actions. These resist actions are handled the same as contested rolls explained previously.

Some may say that this is a good example because it illustrates that things don't have to follow the Action Round Initiative procedure all the time. This is never stated directly, but the example seems to indicate that outside of Action Rounds, different rules apply.

I say this is a very bad example, because it takes the exact concepts of the specialized initiative system and says they don't apply. Instead it's high roll only that applies, and the Resisting Action rules also state a similar idea. It's especially bad because the concepts are introduced right next to each other.

So, maybe I got the wrong idea from the text, but I definitely see why I came away with that idea. The example provided actively works against and contradicts the core initiative concept of the game. It's a really poor example.
 
well, they've had 4 more rulebooks since to get it right at least.
 
well, they've had 4 more rulebooks since to get it right at least.

It looks like the example in question survived until at least the Limited Edition HC. At that time it's just italicized instead of given special prominence in a box. Also, it becomes Sarah Jane trying to talk the Cyberman out of shooting her.

The other thing that irritated me a bit about the game is the complete absence of any explicit rules structure for advancement. The game just throws it's hands up and says the GM should arbitrarily hand out skill, attribute, or story point increases from time to time, and that's about all it says about that.
 
The other thing that irritated me a bit about the game is the complete absence of any explicit rules structure for advancement. The game just throws it's hands up and says the GM should arbitrarily hand out skill, attribute, or story point increases from time to time, and that's about all it says about that.


I generally prefer that. Heavily regimented advancement doesn't suit the source material and, in general, is incredibly unrealistic
 
I generally prefer that. Heavily regimented advancement doesn't suit the source material and, in general, is incredibly unrealistic

I wouldn't say I'd feel it needs something "heavily regimented." But even a throwaway system where skills cost X to improve, attriutes cost x times a factor to improve, and talents cost Y to purchase, would at least be something. And I've seen other light RPGs use about the same space for such systems as AiTaS uses to effectively say nothing.

I'm not averse to milestone systems. I don't mind doing that. I'm certainly not expecting something like classic D&D tracking of kills and GP and level adjusting due to threat followed by calculating shares and then dividing and applying attribute bonus percentages.

But, even "you get 1XP per story. It costs your current skill rating in XP to raise the skill by 1 point." would have actually taken less space than what is in the book and been vastly more meaningful and productive than spending a whole column of text effectively saying nothing beyond "meh. just fudge it." It actually would have been superior had the book not mentioned advancement at all rather than the way it was addressed.

Yes. This is a pet peeve of mine.
 
I wouldn't say I'd feel it needs something "heavily regimented." But even a throwaway system where skills cost X to improve, attriutes cost x times a factor to improve, and talents cost Y to purchase, would at least be something. And I've seen other light RPGs use about the same space for such systems as AiTaS uses to effectively say nothing.

I'm not averse to milestone systems. I don't mind doing that. I'm certainly not expecting something like classic D&D tracking of kills and GP and level adjusting due to threat followed by calculating shares and then dividing and applying attribute bonus percentages.

But, even "you get 1XP per story. It costs your current skill rating in XP to raise the skill by 1 point." would have actually taken less space than what is in the book and been vastly more meaningful and productive than spending a whole column of text effectively saying nothing beyond "meh. just fudge it." It actually would have been superior had the book not mentioned advancement at all rather than the way it was addressed.

Yes. This is a pet peeve of mine.

It's a matter of preference I guess. You put rules on it, people expect you to use those rules.
 
I wonder if they will do away with the Unadventurous trait for assistants? It was an interesting idea, basically a count down clock before the assistants got fed up of being in danger all the time and wanted to go back to a normal life.

I never used it, because I homebrewed before it became a factor, but it simulated the classic show well. The renewed show trended against it since nearly every companion was a cloned multiversal ghost demi-god or whatever.
 
OK, I'm a dumbass. I decided to pre-order the 2e game so I could get the PDF.

Keep in mind that I'm just skimming right now. I'm just zipping through the PDF and not reading in precise detail.

Traits are just GONE. In their place are Distinctions. Distinctions are more or less just pretending there are Traits with a sort of floaty GM fiat definition on what they are and what effect they have.

There IS an experience system now. My first impression is that it's given overblown language to mask pretty much the exact kind of system I was posting about in my earlier post.

D&D 5e certainly made advantage/disadvantage a hot mechanic, because now it's in the Vortex system.

There's a new concept called Focus which is a further sort of mechanic to replace Traits. If a Distinction is like a role/class, then a Focus is like an alignment or dominant personality characteristic. Using your Focus as a benefit provides a die bonus. Playing your focus to a flaw results in a Story Point award.

It features the same Attributes, Skills, and basic mechanic. It's just that all the details and parts have been excised in favor of the individual DM just winging it and specialized Distinctions instead of assembled Trait building blocks.

Not sure what I really think of this major change. It feels like most of the game mechanics have been removed, leaving just a die resolution mechanic.
 
sounds like rules bloat

Not following what you're saying.

---

Marksman and Fighting have been folded into a single skill. OK, I can get behind that. Intuition has been added, so I guess the game can now join the ranks of those with lots of perception rolls.

I didn't mention, Distinctions cost Story Points. Unless you are Companion with no Distinctions whatsoever, then the number of Story Points you have in this edition will be greatly reduced. For example, the Doctor gets 3 (down from 8). My first impression is that Focus is supposed to make up the difference and cut down on the original intended liquidity of the Story Point economy.
 
It features the same Attributes, Skills, and basic mechanic. It's just that all the details and parts have been excised in favor of the individual DM just winging it and specialized Distinctions instead of assembled Trait building blocks.

Not sure what I really think of this major change. It feels like most of the game mechanics have been removed, leaving just a die resolution mechanic.
Huh. Not sure if I'll like that. I liked the Vortex System quite a bit. Even have Rocket Age which I enjoy. It feels like abandoning good system elements I liked for something else (I like a LITTLE structure in a game.)
 
I decided that, basically, I’m sticking with my 50th Anniversary Edition again. The limited edition cover is what I think they should have done before anyway, but it isn’t enough to tempt me further. I’m happy with the version of Doctor Who I’ve got. The actual time travel game I am looking forward to is Luther Arkwright.
 
I thought the Limited Edition hardcover looked very cool (although I don't love the look of the current Tardis interior). However, having read about the content changes here and at TBP, I've decided this edition is not for me and I'm sticking with my existing Matt Smith Box and 50th Anniversary book, plus supplements.

There's a few potentially nice ideas, such as Focus (which I might nick and use in my own games), but it sounds like they've taken too much out that was either good or, at the very least, getting the job done. For every good change they've made it feels like there's one bad change along with one mediocre change too.

I'll probably check out future supplements, as things are supposed to be backwards compatible, to see if there's usable material but I think I have everything I need for Who gaming now anyway.
 
I thought the Limited Edition hardcover looked very cool (although I don't love the look of the current Tardis interior). However, having read about the content changes here and at TBP, I've decided this edition is not for me and I'm sticking with my existing Matt Smith Box and 50th Anniversary book, plus supplements.

There's a few potentially nice ideas, such as Focus (which I might nick and use in my own games), but it sounds like they've taken too much out that was either good or, at the very least, getting the job done. For every good change they've made it feels like there's one bad change along with one mediocre change too.

I'll probably check out future supplements, as things are supposed to be backwards compatible, to see if there's usable material but I think I have everything I need for Who gaming now anyway.

Most of the changes seem like they could be dropped into the 1e game. The Experiences system provided in 2e could easily be dropped into 1e to fill the void there. The change to skills (combining the two combat skills and adding a perception skill while also providing for specializations) is also easy to drop into the existing game. Focus is also a modular mechanic and easy to add to a 1e game.

Replacing the explicit nature of Traits with the fuzzy nature of Distinctions is where things get a bit more indistinct. Everything still has their old Traits represented through their new Distinctions. It's just that now instead of a menu listing of different Trait blocks which can be assembled, each character now simply has a Distinction which is a custom rule for that particular character (or character type) which must function mechanically as all the old Traits. So, if there was an old monster previously called a Hoojib, the 1e version would have a list of Traits which were generally defined and assembled for the monster. In 2e the Hoojib has a mere one Distinction. It has the Distinction of Hoojib and Hoojib is defined as a unique rule for the monster which has all the mechanical elements of the old Traits.

I'm not sure what removing Traits actually accomplishes beyond removing character (PC and NPC) creation toolkit options from the game. It eliminates a toolkit and set of standards and replaces the whole thing with "just make shit up."
Obviously they were going for a more freeform nature with the change to Distinctions. I think I get it. In fact, sometimes in other games I would do the same thing. But, in this case, I think the change was a bad idea and has amputated a good deal of the meat of the engine. It hasn't actually eliminated potential crunch. It's just superficially hidden it under the rug and it's pretending it's no longer there.

Considering how things are set up, I wouldn't be overly surprised if Traits had been ripped out in order to be saved for a Doctor Who Rules Companion or something. The "make shit up" Distinctions would be the default rule and then a supplement would fill that space with explicit Traits as an optional advanced rule (allowing reprinting of the old material). I can see it happening.
 
When I first heard there were changes to Traits what I imagined (based on the few bits of info I had) was that the list was being streamlined a bit and that only the more powerful Traits had specific rules exceptions but that there would also be simplified "normal" Trait rules. That seems to be kind of the case now but I had assumed, wrongly, that many of the Minor Traits would still exist in some format. I was imagining something along the lines of them being a simple descriptor that applies a +1 bonus or -1 penalty, or something, whenever it was relevant.

The problem with the new approach, Distinctions, is that they seem to be a bit like Fate's Aspects and if I wanted to play Who with something Fate-like then I'd pick up and crack open my copies of Starblazer Adventures and The Dresden Files (and perhaps have a quick look at the Fate SRDs). I could also do something quite similar with PDQ and PDQ#. I don't see what this new edition of Who offers me that they don't.

The other issue is that without the Minor Traits the companions all feel a bit blander. I want them to be a bit more than just a bag of attributes and skills. I guess it might push more players into creating "special" companions, with Distinctions (if that's actually possible), which would be more in-keeping with the revived series and some of the Expanded Universe stuff. However, I want to run stuff closer to the original series and want varied and interesting companions without them having to be of cosmic significance or what-have-you.
 
Last edited:
When I first heard there were changes to Traits what I imagined (based on the few bits of info I had) was that the list was being streamlined a bit and that only the more powerful Traits had specific rules exceptions but that there would also be simplified "normal" Trait rules. That seems to be kind of the case now but I had assumed, wrongly, that many of the Minor Traits would still exist in some format. I was imagining something along the lines of them being a simple descriptor that applies a +1 bonus or -1 penalty, or something, whenever it was relevant.

The problem with the new approach, Distinctions, is that they seem to be a bit like Fate's Aspects and if I wanted to play Who with something Fate-like then I'd pick up and crack open my copies of Starblazer Adventures and The Dresden Files (and perhaps have a quick look at the Fate SRDs). I could also do something quite similar with PDQ and PDQ#. I don't see what this new edition of Who offers me that they don't.

The other issue is that without the Minor Traits the companions all feel a bit blander. I want them to be a bit more than just a bag of attributes and skills. I guess it might push more players into creating "special" companions, with Distinctions (if that's actually possible), which would be more in-keeping with the revived series and some of the Expanded Universe stuff. However, I want to run stuff closer to the original series and want varied and interesting companions without them having to be of cosmic significance or what-have-you.

To the extent that I understand FATE Aspects, yes, the Distinctions are very similar.

As for Companions and Distinctions. Here are some examples. Keep in mind that I know absolutely nothing about these Companions other than what these character sheets tell me.

Graham O'Brien
Concept: Retired Bus Driver
Focus: Compassion
Distinctions: None
Attributes and Skills indicate sort of half-assedly specced out to be the negotiator of the crew.
I'm picturing a character who is effectively "the dad" or "the adult in the room."

Yasmin Khan
Concept: Probationary Police Officer
Focus: The Law
Distinctions: None
Attributes and Skills indicate she's the combat character of the crew.
I'm picturing a parody of Judge Dredd here for this character.

Ryan Sinclair
Concept: Trainee Electrical Engineer
Focus: Hope
Distinctions: None
Attributes and Skills seem to indicate he's specced out solely to notice things? Maybe have random insights?
I'm picturing a character here whose only distinction is that sometimes they miraculously have the right answer. Basically like how the Doctor would be working through a problem and one of the Companions would say something and the Doctor would suddenly realize it was the solution to the entire problem. Basically, a character built entirely around that concept and function.

So, from the examples, I take it to mean that Distinctions are only really for aliens. Given that I have a generally dim view of Companion characters (there are only a few I genuinely like), I also take it that Distinctions are only for interesting characters and Companions don't qualify.
 
The problem with the new approach, Distinctions, is that they seem to be a bit like Fate's Aspects and if I wanted to play Who with something Fate-like then I'd pick up and crack open my copies of Starblazer Adventures and The Dresden Files (and perhaps have a quick look at the Fate SRDs). I could also do something quite similar with PDQ and PDQ#. I don't see what this new edition of Who offers me that they don't.
I'd start with Atomic Robo as a base. It assumes a little more action-oriented material than Who usually offers, but a lot of the other rules and the brainstorming stuff seems like it would fit well.

As for Companions and Distinctions. Here are some examples. Keep in mind that I know absolutely nothing about these Companions other than what these character sheets tell me.

Graham O'Brien
Concept: Retired Bus Driver
Focus: Compassion
Distinctions: None
Attributes and Skills indicate sort of half-assedly specced out to be the negotiator of the crew.
I'm picturing a character who is effectively "the dad" or "the adult in the room."

Yasmin Khan
Concept: Probationary Police Officer
Focus: The Law
Distinctions: None
Attributes and Skills indicate she's the combat character of the crew.
I'm picturing a parody of Judge Dredd here for this character.

Ryan Sinclair
Concept: Trainee Electrical Engineer
Focus: Hope
Distinctions: None
Attributes and Skills seem to indicate he's specced out solely to notice things? Maybe have random insights?
I'm picturing a character here whose only distinction is that sometimes they miraculously have the right answer. Basically like how the Doctor would be working through a problem and one of the Companions would say something and the Doctor would suddenly realize it was the solution to the entire problem. Basically, a character built entirely around that concept and function.
Yas is probably the "combat character" in that she's the only one who could actually throw a punch or use a nightstick, and she's a bit more forceful than the others, but she's still a talky / investigative sort rather than a fighter like Mickie or Jack. Quite far off the Dredd type.

That said, given you've nailed Graham and Ryan fairly well (Although Ryan's more empathic than randomly insightful), it sounds like the pregens are actually not bad.
 
It sounds like they are making a light game even lighter. Which just makes me start asking, “why even have rules then?” I think I’ll be passing.
 
It sounds like they are making a light game even lighter. Which just makes me start asking, “why even have rules then?” I think I’ll be passing.
This is honestly my thought.

Usually, when games are simplified like this by cutting out mechanics, it's because the original mechanics flatly didn't work or were far more cumbersome than what they accomplished.

Were Traits seen like this? Did the people playing the 1e game dislike Traits and find them far too difficult and crunchy to use?
 
Were Traits seen like this? Did the people playing the 1e game dislike Traits and find them far too difficult and crunchy to use?
For me, long lists of purchasable traits in games is generally undesirable. There is too much book referencing and it can feel like an artificial way of defining characteristics. It also doesn’t translate that well to playing online, we have found. Fate isn’t the originator of free-form traits, and it isn’t the only game that uses them. On that basis, I don’t mind Doctor Who having them. However, its not really enough to convince me to get a new edition.
 
This might work better for me than traits did in the original game. I'll have to consider whether I want to splash out on the ugliest core book for the sake of a (maybe?) more fitting system. Since I have two copies of the older game, and homebrew my rules, I'm suspecting I won't...

...But maybe. My relationship with Doctor Who is highly abusive. I love it and it treats me badly.
 
This is honestly my thought.

Usually, when games are simplified like this by cutting out mechanics, it's because the original mechanics flatly didn't work or were far more cumbersome than what they accomplished.

Were Traits seen like this? Did the people playing the 1e game dislike Traits and find them far too difficult and crunchy to use?

Traits we’re fiddly. DW is a game that has the potential for large appeal among people who are not already gamers. A lengthy menu of options - many of which have limited (or worse) meaning to someone who doesn’t already know the game - can be a turn off for neophyte players. Distinctions are, conceptually at least, pretty easy to understand. Additionally, as the group (particularly the game master) become more familiar with the game, the Distinction(s) a character has can acquire deeper meaning - but don’t ever need to become something that player wishes they hadn’t chosen.

The thing to keep in mind is that this wasn‘t so much a change to improve the game for existing players, but one to make the game more attractive to new players. From this perspective I think it is an effective change.
 
I dunno, my impression is that a list of options is much more appealing to new players, specifically new roleplayers, than freeform traits. When something can "be anything" my experience is that it tends to lead to decision paralysis where someone new to the hobby is looking for structure in rules to grasp onto and understand.
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top