Dragonbane is the fantasy RPG I've been looking for

[Rich H]

I'm okay with around 25 skills. I was panicking a little thinking that we were heading into the 60+ skills a la Cyberpunk RED and other such games. That's a killer for me but anything from 12 to 24ish is okay; it isn't overkill. I'm more concerned about removing/dulling down the mechanical flavour of the different class/profession types so still a tad concerned but if worse comes to worse, I'll just sell it on if its not for me.

 

[Vile Traveller]

I've calmed down a bit (as have FL, it seems from their replies), and 25ish skills sounds good. Any more and you're inflating geometrically, because if you add one skill that's half as broad as the rest, you have to split every other skill into two to keep them equally useful. And there's no way a skill list can cover every situation, that's like trying to write comprehensive rules for a ring of three wishes.

Though I still don't like the weapon skills.

On another point, I hope they move from a 2m grid to 1.5m, otherwise all those battle maps and floor plans out there will be useless (or awkward to convert, at least).

 

[johnmarron]

On another point, I hope they move from a 2m grid to 1.5m, otherwise all those battle maps and floor plans out there will be useless (or awkward to convert, at least).

Not a criticism - I'm genuinely curious, but why do you think the difference between a 1.5m grid and a 2m grid is that big a deal? I wouldn't think a difference of .5m/1.5 ft would affect anything enough to feel different. I'm planning on using my exisiting battle maps in Dragonbane with no conversion, just count each square as 2m.

John

 

[Vile Traveller]

Not a criticism - I'm genuinely curious, but why do you think the difference between a 1.5m grid and a 2m grid is that big a deal? I wouldn't think a difference of .5m/1.5 ft would affect anything enough to feel different. I'm planning on using my exisiting battle maps in Dragonbane with no conversion, just count each square as 2m.

John

That works, but it pushes scale even further off than it is already. Modern minis are generally oversized for 25mm = 1.5m grids. It's also a problem mixing and matching physical or VTT maps. In other words, you could certainly make do, but why make do when now is the opportunity to make things compatible.

 

[Rich H]

New update is out, boys and girls...

Updated Rulebook​

The Rulebook has been updated in several ways:

• The biggest change is the expansion of the skill list along with the removal av profession-specific abilities, as discussed in a previous update. This change will not reduce accessibility or slow down gameplay in any significant way, but it does open for more character variation and freedom in character generation. It's also a little more in line with the Drakar och Demoner tradition.
• The profession abilities are still there - they are now just bundles in with heroic abilities of which each character excepts mages get one at the start of the game. Some heroic abilities have been tweaked, and a few new ones added.
• All of the feedback and error reports posted by you on our forums have been updated and, in most cases, implemented. Thank you!
• The graphic design has been tweaked to reduce the amount of parchment boxes, as it felt a little too boxy.
• You will find a printer-friendly character sheet at the end of the Rulebook PDF.

Adventures Book​

The PDF package now also includes a Beta version of the beginning of the Adventures book. It includes a campaign overview, an opening scene, a description of the village adventure hub Outskirt (Utkante), random encounter tables for travels in the Misty Vale (Dimmornas dal), and three complete adventures: an updated Riddermound, Bothild's Lode (Bothilds bryte) by Johan Sjöberg, and The Temple of the Purple Flame (Templet Purpurbrand) by Svante Landgraf. Some comments:

• This is not the entire Adventures book - the finished book will include eight (8) more adventures, for a total of eleven, and its page count will likely match or exceed the Rulebook. We will share the remaining adventures in the coming weeks. There is also some art still missing in the chapters already included.
• What you have now is however enough to get you started playing the introductory campaign The Secret of the Dragon Emperor (Drakkejsarens hemlighet).
• The adventures occaionally refer to treasure cards (skattkort). These are not yet done, but you can access the content of the cards in the form of a random table, in English here and in Swedish here - just roll a D4 and a D10 instead of drawing a card.

Other New Stuff​

The Beta PDF package also includes a large player map of the Misty Vale (Dimmornas dal), a player map of the village Outskirt (Utkante), and updated cards for improvised weapons.

... Think my first houserule will be to bring back Profession-specific abilities so nice that I have the previous version of the PDF to easily roll back to. The Skill List doesn't look too bad/big.

 

[zcthu3]

New update is out, boys and girls...



... Think my first houserule will be to bring back Profession-specific abilities so nice that I have the previous version of the PDF to easily roll back to. The Skill List doesn't look too bad/big.

I’m actually pleased with what they’ve done in that they’ve generally swung back to a skill-based vs. class-based system but disappointed that they have kept magic as a Mage Profession-only ability with no ability to learn magic later. The rest of the Professions are now clearly starting packages of what you were before you became an adventurer - Mage is now clearly a ‘class’ with a specific class only ability.

 

[raniE]

I’m actually pleased with what they’ve done in that they’ve generally swung back to a skill-based vs. class-based system but disappointed that they have kept magic as a Mage Profession-only ability with no ability to learn magic later. The rest of the Professions are now clearly starting packages of what you were before you became an adventurer - Mage is now clearly a ‘class’ with a specific class only ability.

Some older editions of Drakar och Demoner had it that you had to succeed on a INT+POW roll on d100 to be able to use magic, in later editions it was changed to rolling lower than INT+POW/2 on a d100, but if you chose a magic-using occupation you got to automatically succeed on this roll. Is the roll for anyone, including non-wizards, to be able to use magic gone now?

 

[zcthu3]

Some older editions of Drakar och Demoner had it that you had to succeed on a INT+POW roll on d100 to be able to use magic, in later editions it was changed to rolling lower than INT+POW/2 on a d100, but if you chose a magic-using occupation you got to automatically succeed on this roll. Is the roll for anyone, including non-wizards, to be able to use magic gone now?

Yes. As currently written only those who start with the Mage profession can use magic and there is no ability to learn to use it later. I’ve suggested on the feedback forum a Heroic Ability which you could add to enable that to happen while preserving Mage as the profession to be good at magic at character creation.

 

[johnmarron]

I prefer the stripped down skill list of the original Beta, but I'm fine with the expanded list. I thought I would not be happy with removing the profession special abilities, but i like the flexibility, and I think having three suggested heroic abilities for each profession will keep character generation fast.

 

[Stan]

They also broke out marksman to 3 separate skills: bow, crossbow, and sling - not really necessary but I guess it's consistent with the breakdown of melee weapons.

Interesting that they doubled the non-weapon skills but didn't give you any more trained skills at start. That amounts to nerfing the overall character competence at start - not sure if that's good or bad without playing a several sessions and see how things progress.

The overall size/complexity of the rule book is on the light side and within my preferred length. I'm hoping to get it all a test run in January.

The new maps are nice. I haven't had a chance to look at the adventure yet.

 

[johnmarron]

I think the adventures they have put out so far look great, and the overall campaign looks like it wil be fun, but I plan to continue my Dolmenwood/OSR modules campaign until the actual physical game gets out. I'd like to have all the physical props (adventure site cards, treasure cards, etc,) before running the official campaign.

 

[Rich H]

I realise I've said this before but I really really love the art...

 

[Stan]

Is there any interest in a Dragonbane one shot in a couple of weeks? It would likely be on a Sunday afternoon Eastern.

If you are in the kickstarter, you can make any character using the Beta V2 rules. If not, or you don't wanna make one, you can grab a character from the quickstart rules, which are close enough for a one shot.

This would be an original adventure with a home brew monster.

 

[Cowboy Duck]

Is there any interest in a Dragonbane one shot in a couple of weeks? It would likely be on a Sunday afternoon Eastern.

If you are in the kickstarter, you can make any character using the Beta V2 rules. If not, or you don't wanna make one, you can grab a character from the quickstart rules, which are close enough for a one shot.

This would be an original adventure with a home brew monster.

Possibly - schedule and tech requirements depending.

 

[Cross Planes]

Is there any interest in a Dragonbane one shot in a couple of weeks? It would likely be on a Sunday afternoon Eastern.

If you are in the kickstarter, you can make any character using the Beta V2 rules. If not, or you don't wanna make one, you can grab a character from the quickstart rules, which are close enough for a one shot.

This would be an original adventure with a home brew monster.

I'd be up for it. I've run it twice and it would be nice to play. Our group really enjoyed it. Most of them only know D&D 4 & 5 and they all liked how clean resolution was.

 

[SJB]

I notice that Dragonbane is “opposed roll success vs success low roll wins”. We call “opposed roll success vs success high roll wins” blackjack. Is there a handy term for low roll wins?

 

[Nick J]

I notice that Dragonbane is “opposed roll success vs success low roll wins”. We call “opposed roll success vs success high roll wins” blackjack. Is there a handy term for low roll wins?

"Stupid?"

 

[Raleel]

I notice that Dragonbane is “opposed roll success vs success low roll wins”. We call “opposed roll success vs success high roll wins” blackjack. Is there a handy term for low roll wins?

Morally wrong? An abomination?

In all seriousness, that takes away a higher skill’s edge against a lower skill. A 25% against a 75% has, when they both succeed, a 2/3rd chance of the 75% losing the roll. That seems inconsistent with reality

 

[Chris Brady]

The problem I have with rolling low is that there's a cap. You can NEVER go below 0. Whereas with an additive system, the ceiling is technically unlimited.

 

[Rich H]

The problem I have with rolling low is that there's a cap. You can NEVER go below 0. Whereas with an additive system, the ceiling is technically unlimited.

And the cap can be boosted due to situational events or character traits (like Passions in Pendragon). Pendragon had fantastically simple but effective opposed roll mechanics.

"Roll lowest under your skill wins" in an opposed roll is god-awful design as it limits so many options.

 

[SJB]

Wording of the rule:

“If both of you succeed with your rolls, your action succeeds if the result of your roll is lower than or equal to your opponent’s result. If the opponent’s result is lower than yours, you fail.”

 

[Raleel]

Yea, while I get why they are doing that (it’s intuitive) it’s mathematically a poor choice. It even goes towards a problem with blackjack rolling that I’ve seen several times, but it’s a bandaid.

would anything break doing it the other way?

 

[Raleel]

25% against a 75% has, when they both succeed, a 2/3rd chance of the 75% losing the roll. That seems

It’s actually worse. It’s 2/3 chance of losing because he rolls over 25%, and 50% chance of losing under 25%. So if the 25% actually succeeds, he has an 87.5% chance of winning the contest, despite being 1/3 the skill. I’m sure it gives those low skill guys a feeling like they have a chance, and I bet it encourages spending points in skills and diversifying a lot. But it also discourages improving heavily. After a point, it becomes less useful to put points into a skill because you have increased the gap between you and everyone around you to the point where their chance of winning the contest is their skill, full stop.

with blackjack, 75% has a 2/3 chance of winning because the opposition can’t make the roll, even if they succeed. Then he has a 50% chance of winning at 25 and under. So, 25% has a small chance (about half of their skill) for success overall because he’s facing a highly skilled foe.

I have an anydice I can use on this but am heading out the door.

 

[Rich H]

would anything break doing it the other way?

I'd like to know this too because this is a dealbreaker for me keeping the game. Seriously, I hate this mechanic, it's utter shite.

 

[CRKrueger]

That’s REALLY bad game design. A guy with a 5% skill who rolls a 4 is going to beat one with 97% skill who rolls a 5. If you’re going to not use Blackjack, then you have to compare the range of success. The 5% skill rolling a 4 beat his skill by 1, while the 97% skill guy who rolls a 5 beat his skill by 92. But then you’re subtracting, which is a little unwieldy.

Which is why you use Blackjack in this situation.

What the hell are they thinking?

 

[zcthu3]

Personally, I’ve never really liked Blackjack-resolution of opposed rolls either (I know statistically it makes sense, but it just doesn’t feel right). In keeping with the ‘roll low’ mentality of Dragonbane I’d just prefer they used margin of success (and is probably how I’d house rule it); the subtraction isn’t that hard when you’re looking in a range of 20, particularly when you’re talking large margins - often you can just eyeball it as you just need to know who has the biggest difference, and that is often obvious.

 

[Raleel]

Personally, I’ve never really liked Blackjack-resolution of opposed rolls either (I know statistically it makes sense, but it just doesn’t feel right). In keeping with the ‘roll low’ mentality of Dragonbane I’d just prefer they used margin of success (and is probably how I’d house rule it); the subtraction isn’t that hard when you’re looking in a range of 20, particularly when you’re talking large margins - often you can just eyeball it as you just need to know who has the biggest difference, and that is often obvious.

Indeed, with d20 this shouldn’t be an issue. Surprised they didn’t do that instead

 

[Baragei]

That’s REALLY bad game design. A guy with a 5% skill who rolls a 4 is going to beat one with 97% skill who rolls a 5. If you’re going to not use Blackjack, then you have to compare the range of success. The 5% skill rolling a 4 beat his skill by 1, while the 97% skill guy who rolls a 5 beat his skill by 92. But then you’re subtracting, which is a little unwieldy.

Which is why you use Blackjack in this situation.

What the hell are they thinking?

As a norwegian I'm culturally both inclined and allowed to rag on them for being swedes. It's nice when it's unquestionably deserved.

 

[CRKrueger]

Personally, I’ve never really liked Blackjack-resolution of opposed rolls either (I know statistically it makes sense, but it just doesn’t feel right). In keeping with the ‘roll low’ mentality of Dragonbane I’d just prefer they used margin of success (and is probably how I’d house rule it); the subtraction isn’t that hard when you’re looking in a range of 20, particularly when you’re talking large margins - often you can just eyeball it as you just need to know who has the biggest difference, and that is often obvious.

Indeed, with d20 this shouldn’t be an issue. Surprised they didn’t do that instead

True, a d20 would be better.

Thinking about it though...if you have say, a 20% and 80% skill being opposed. Most of the time, the 20% is just going to miss and the 80% will not, so there's no an issue, the 80% wins. If they both succeed, then for just that window or range, the lower skill has an advantage, even though overall, he doesn't.

So what you get is a situation where the apprentice can really only beat the master when the master makes a mistake (by a high success). I can kind of see the issue they're trying to fix. Blackjack is unintuitive to some because you want to roll low, except when you don't.

Still, if they wanted to keep the Roll Low, they should have used Margin of Success, which has the value of allowing certain benefits for high margins of success. For example, with a d20, every 5 under what you needed could be another Margin of Success, thus allowing a Mythras-like Special Effect or a Savage Worlds-like Raise.

 

[Sharrow]

The primary effect is to make skill level not matter very much in an opposed skill check. Skill-2 vs Skill-10 has the skill-2 win about 10% of the time (assuming ties are ties and both failing is also effectively a tie). Skill-10 vs skill-15 sees about a 3:4 win rate - not far from even odds. If that was the goal, it succeeds very well. If not, it's just bad.

I don't like it both because it levels out skill and because it's saying "low skilled people always succeed really well, and becoming more skilled just means the average quality of your successful work drops" - you become more successful by becoming mediocre. It both feels bad and it does something I don't like.

 

[Rob Necronomicon]

I'll probably back this. I love that guy's art as well.

 

[sdmsec]

I've backed this project but never played a roll-under system. So this leads me to the following questions:
Is this a universal issue in roll-under systems, or do other roll-under systems have a different, more elegant, method of handling opposed rolls?
What's the value in having a "both fail" option in an opposed roll? For example, does "both fail" lead to an unexpected event occurring, or something else that makes it interesting?

 

[Cross Planes]

I've backed this project but never played a roll-under system. So this leads me to the following questions:
Is this a universal issue in roll-under systems, or do other roll-under systems have a different, more elegant, method of handling opposed rolls?
What's the value in having a "both fail" option in an opposed roll? For example, does "both fail" lead to an unexpected event occurring, or something else that makes it interesting?

It is an issue when a margin of success matters. If the lowest roll wins any kind of opposed test it means the creature with the lower skill won't succeed as much as the the creature with the higher skill but when it does succeed it will win the opposed check more often because to succeed their roll has to be lower than the higher skilled opponent.

Subtracting the roll from the skill is the best way to go if you don't want to use a "blackjack" mechanic (highest successful skill check).

For instance a goblin has a sword skill of 8 or less and Berserker has an axe skill of 14 or less.
Goblin rolls a 2 which is subtracted from their sword skill for a margin of success of 6.
Bersker rolls a 4 with a margin of success of 10.

I don't like this mechanic in percentile systems but that is because double digit subtraction seems to trip people up sometimes. But on a d20 its easy peezy.

 

[zcthu3]

Some other roll under systems also have things like degrees of success - so RuneQuest 3 as an example, had critical, special and normal successes, failure and fumbles. The range of each level of success varied depending on skill level (so, from memory, a special success was 20% of your overall chance, and a critical was 5% - so at 100% you got a special success on 1-20 and a critical success on 1-5 (and yes, critical successes were also considered special successes for things like impales, the effects stacked!), while someone with only 50% in a skill had a special range of 1-10 and a crit range of 1-3. In opposed rolls it was however had the better type of success who won, ie crit trumped special, special trumps normal etc.

‘It’s more book keeping, but works nicely in practice.

 

[zcthu3]

It is an issue when a margin of success matters. If the lowest roll wins any kind of opposed test it means the creature with the lower skill won't succeed as much as the the creature with the higher skill but when it does succeed it will win the opposed check more often because to succeed their roll has to be lower than the higher skilled opponent.

Subtracting the roll from the skill is the best way to go if you don't want to use a "blackjack" mechanic (highest successful skill check).

For instance a goblin has a sword skill of 8 or less and Berserker has an axe skill of 14 or less.
Goblin rolls a 2 which is subtracted from their sword skill for a margin of success of 6.
Bersker rolls a 4 with a margin of success of 10.

I don't like this mechanic in percentile systems but that is because double digit subtraction seems to trip people up sometimes. But on a d20 its easy peezy.

Agree, that’s actually what I’d prefer - it keeps the roll low mentality but gives higher skilled characters an edge in opposed rolls. If they stay with lowest roll wins, I’ll probably house rule it as I like the rest of the game.

 

[S'mon]

Yeah, that's a new one to me. For those with experience with the original game, was it typically more about confronting the monster vs. a monster? If so, I heartily approve. Mowing down hordes of creatures that would otherwise be nothing but nightmare fuel in any folk tale, legend or novel has always been a little deflating in most of the fantasy RPGs I've read, run or played.

Loving Dragonbane & Free League so far!

Re monsters, there is a sharp distinction between regular NPC 'monsters' like goblins & orcs, and the big-M Monsters who are definitely not to be taken lightly. For one thing they never need to roll to hit, whereas even the best PC will miss on a 19-20.

Session 1 battle at the goblin camp where Trystan the Bard (seen here behind rock) met his end. That's Makander the Mallard up front.

 

[S'mon]

Yeah, that counts for sure. I have no idea how much combat you actually got into, but all of these BRP games typically end in a few rounds. A limb gets lost, a major wound is inflicted, etc. I wouldn't expect bandits and such having to make attack rolls would make things cumbersome, unless there are about a dozen or more combatants. But who knows how Free League is approaching the finer points in this game?

Both battles in my first session went very fast, with lots of goblins splattering everywhere. First was a failed ambush by 5 goblins & goblin warg rider (which counts as a Monster), second battle was the PCs attacking a camp of 10 sleeping goblins. The first battle the Bard went to 0 hp & took a severe chest wound lingering injury, the second had him shot to death while fluting. Player is coming back with a plate armoured wolfkin knight who should survive longer.

 

[S'mon]

I've calmed down a bit (as have FL, it seems from their replies), and 25ish skills sounds good. Any more and you're inflating geometrically, because if you add one skill that's half as broad as the rest, you have to split every other skill into two to keep them equally useful. And there's no way a skill list can cover every situation, that's like trying to write comprehensive rules for a ring of three wishes.

Though I still don't like the weapon skills.

On another point, I hope they move from a 2m grid to 1.5m, otherwise all those battle maps and floor plans out there will be useless (or awkward to convert, at least).

I just declared the grid was 1 meter squares. Players liked being able to get across the map into melee, and it makes Difficult Terrain a lot more practical. Eg in my first battle there was a central path of regular terrain, everything off it was difficult.

 

[S'mon]

IME so far, opposed rolls don't come up much. And almost always one party is active, spending an action, vs the other passive. This makes the exact chances much less important. Where both parties are active I suggest a success only if one succeeds & one fails, otherwise situation unchanged.

 

[Triumvir]

I was intrigued by what they did with Monsters auto-hitting. On first read it looks like it might be too deadly, but at least it should definitely keep the players on their toes.