Dragonbane is the fantasy RPG I've been looking for

[S'mon]

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.

PCs can still dodge ofc.

 

[Stan]

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.

This is sort of offset by their random action so they can't always auto hit on the weakest character. In the bit I played around with it, monsters are like a force of nature - it makes them totally different goblins and the like who fight like weaker PCs.

 

[sdmsec]

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.

Thanks. This will be a great fallback if I find the game's opposed rolls too wonky.
Perhaps, as others have suggested, directly opposed rolls won't occur too often.

I'm curious about the other idea -- that when all opposed rolls fail then, rather than just making another roll, something dramatic has happened that changes the nature of the contest. Is this something that has been addressed in other roll-under systems? If so, what were the specifics of how/what occurs when all opposed parties fail?

 

[Raleel]

as promised, anydice

• https://anydice.com/program/2dd9a this one is for standard opposed rolls.
• https://anydice.com/program/2dd9b this one is low roll wins.

attacker (A) has to be less than or equal to his skill (ATT). If he is, and he's higher than defender (D) or D is greater than his skill (DEF), he wins, otherwise he loses.

At ATT 75 DEF 25

• BLACKJACK - 28.25% D wins, 71.75 A wins.
• ROLL LOW - 40.75% D wins, 59.25% A wins

That's a 24% swing. If that was an election, it would be a landslide. If that was medical, it would be a breakthrough. In this case, it means that it is very hard to break defense, even if they suck.

Let's alter it some more. 100% skill vs 25%

• 22% D wins, 78% A wins

interesting shift there. Due almost entirely to A being unable to fail (we should adjust it to 95% to account for 5% always fail chance)

Lets switch it entirely. 75% DEF, 25% ATT

• 78.25% D wins, 21.75% A wins

What's fascinating here is that is MUCH closer to blackjack for the defender, because it functionally is blackjack if you reverse the logic.

So, long story short - if you think a moderately high skill person should be able to handily take out a low skill person, you want blackjack. If not, you want roll low.

 

[Acmegamer]

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.

This particular Free League Kickstarter has annoyed me to no end. On top of that debating some of what they are doing with this version of Dragonbane tends to get a lot of push back on the Dragonbane Discord. So much so that I've washed my hands of the whole thing and consider it to be a fail. Waay too late to cancel the Kickstarter and the collector in me wouldn't any how. I just now no longer desire to run it or play it at all.

 

[S'mon]

So, long story short - if you think a moderately high skill person should be able to handily take out a low skill person, you want blackjack. If not, you want roll low.

You are not making opposed rolls to 'take out' enemies. In combat, any parry or dodge roll succeeds, unless the attacker rolled a 1. But the parry or dodge uses up the character's action for the round. Skill 18 vs Skill 10, the 10 will miss soon enough (roll 11+), the 18 can then make an undefended attack and 90% hit. It works very well IME. The key to it working so well is the loss of action when you parry/dodge. A missed attack opens up the attacker's defence and leaves them vulnerable. And if you won init you can choose to swap init with the losing roll, so a viable tactic is to delay your attack, see if you need to parry the opponent, then if they miss you then attack with them unable to parry. It's very clever IMO.
'

 

[Vile Traveller]

I haven't run the numbers (and I won't, I admit), but the argument is that the extra complication of "highest roll under wins, unless it's a 1" is not worth it because the situation hardy comes up in play. If that's the case, I'm all for it - I gave up complicated "realism" in RPGs many years ago, ain't nobody got time for tgat in the 21st century.

That's why the growing skill list, disappoints me, however. It's like the game has split in two since the quickstart, one half trying to be fast and fun (yet still BRP -descendant), while the pushback from the older DoD players is adding back all sorts of crunch that doesn't gel with the original mission statement. FL should step back and look at the big picture, and come down on one side or the other.

I do at this point still prefer the quickstart over all 3 betas.

 

[S'mon]

I haven't run the numbers (and I won't, I admit), but the argument is that the extra complication of "highest roll under wins, unless it's a 1" is not worth it because the situation hardy comes up in play. If that's the case, I'm all for it - I gave up complicated "realism" in RPGs many years ago, ain't nobody got time for tgat in the 21st century.

That's why the growing skill list, disappoints me, however. It's like the game has split in two since the quickstart, one half trying to be fast and fun (yet still BRP -descendant), while the pushback from the older DoD players is adding back all sorts of crunch that doesn't gel with the original mission statement. FL should step back and look at the big picture, and come down on one side or the other.

I do at this point still prefer the quickstart over all 3 betas.

I agree re the skills, I'd prefer a shorter list. Splitting Swimming from Acrobatics, splitting Alertness & Spot Hidden, splitting Bushcraft & Hunting/Fishing - none of those really seem worth it to me. The only advantage of a long skill list is it means more skills to get to 18 & get a Heroic Ability!

 

[Rich H]

I do feel more than a little missold on this project now after all the additions and changes.

 

[Raleel]

You are not making opposed rolls to 'take out' enemies. In combat, any parry or dodge roll succeeds, unless the attacker rolled a 1. But the parry or dodge uses up the character's action for the round. Skill 18 vs Skill 10, the 10 will miss soon enough (roll 11+), the 18 can then make an undefended attack and 90% hit. It works very well IME. The key to it working so well is the loss of action when you parry/dodge. A missed attack opens up the attacker's defence and leaves them vulnerable. And if you won init you can choose to swap init with the losing roll, so a viable tactic is to delay your attack, see if you need to parry the opponent, then if they miss you then attack with them unable to parry. It's very clever IMO.
'

Right, I’m quite familiar with action point systems and the opportunity cost there. My sig and indeed my nickname point to one that does this. This system, however, highly favors the lower skill opponent, compared to a standard blackjack system, which also can run on action points. If you prefer that, great, more power to you. I even can see why they opted for a different mechanic. It just has a surprisingly large effect on who can win a skill contest, and I think a more unintuitive result.

I agree re the skills, I'd prefer a shorter list. Splitting Swimming from Acrobatics, splitting Alertness & Spot Hidden, splitting Bushcraft & Hunting/Fishing - none of those really seem worth it to me. The only advantage of a long skill list is it means more skills to get to 18 & get a Heroic Ability!

Agree on all fronts here. I don’t think most of those warrant their own skill at all, and at most should be represented by a bonus of some kind ala RevD100.

 

[Stan]

Right, I’m quite familiar with action point systems and the opportunity cost there. My sig and indeed my nickname point to one that does this. This system, however, highly favors the lower skill opponent, compared to a standard blackjack system, which also can run on action points. If you prefer that, great, more power to you. I even can see why they opted for a different mechanic. It just has a surprisingly large effect on who can win a skill contest, and I think a more unintuitive result.

What S'mon is saying is that combat does not operate on any kind of opposed roll. First, the attacker either hits or doesn't. Then the dodge/parry either works or doesn't. The values of the two rolls are never compared.

Opposed rolls seem to be only special cases like opposed strength checks. Yes, lowest wins is wonky but it's simple and it's simple to adjust if you don't like it.

 

[CRKrueger]

This particular Free League Kickstarter has annoyed me to no end. On top of that debating some of what they are doing with this version of Dragonbane tends to get a lot of push back on the Dragonbane Discord. So much so that I've washed my hands of the whole thing and consider it to be a fail. Waay too late to cancel the Kickstarter and the collector in me wouldn't any how. I just now no longer desire to run it or play it at all.

On the FL forums, there’s a topic about it and everyone is pretty much saying what we’re saying here, ie. they should use Blackjack or Margin of Success.

 

[Raleel]

What S'mon is saying is that combat does not operate on any kind of opposed roll. First, the attacker either hits or doesn't. Then the dodge/parry either works or doesn't. The values of the two rolls are never compared.

So if they attacker succeeds, and the defender succeeds, the defender always wins?

 

[Stan]

So if they attacker succeeds, and the defender succeeds, the defender always wins?

Yep.

 

[Raleel]

Yep.

Well then, that math doesn’t apply to attack rolls then!

https://anydice.com/program/2ddb8 this splits out failure of both from failure of one. Attack is determined first and checked against defender fail. If defender doesn’t fail, they win (as I understand it). Both failing is 0 (no winner)

 

[sharps54]

I haven’t really kept up with this as it doesn’t interest me but I am sad to hear the development hell it is currently going through. This is why I like to back kickstarters where the game is done but just needs art or maybe editing.

 

[Nick J]

Are we even sure the developers know they are going through development hell? I certainly get the impression, they are doing a bit of "winging it" with their design philosophy, or maybe don't understand the mechanical model they are implementing. I guess it's somewhat encouraging they are iterating, but I'd be even more encouraged if it didn't feel like they were using the Homer Simpson's "makeup shotgun" aproach.

 

[malc]

I get the feeling that the designers want to go for a light, modern set or rules, but many of the long-time fans of the system want something heavier, and more like the system they’re used to.

Another case of inconsistent design goals leading to an incoherent outcome?

 

[sharps54]

Or another case of listening to fans limiting the innovation in a new edition.

 

[Rich H]

I've not kept up with the Beta releases but from what I'm reading its starting to feel pretty clunky and cludged together. Like a bad heartbreaker. That could be down to them trying to accomodate lots of opinions, etc assuming of course its a valid statement and not me just missing things.

 

[S'mon]

Are we even sure the developers know they are going through development hell? I certainly get the impression, they are doing a bit of "winging it" with their design philosophy

My impression is that Simulationist games are a bit of a new thing for them, with the in-house YZE being more a Dramatist system.
They certainly seem to come up with good stuff, then discard it - eg shields absolutely should give a Boon on Parry, & I'll definitely be keeping that. Likewise whatever they decide, I'm keeping stacking Boons & Banes, which works brilliantly in play - a lot of stuff worked a lot better in play than I expected, a bit like my experience running 5e D&D for the first time. For me following the playtesting is proving very valuable in seeing under the bonnet & how best to house rule the system. I'll probably stick with whatever skills list they settle on, though - too much hassle to edit the PC sheets.

 

[Rich H]

... I'll probably stick with whatever skills list they settle on, though - too much hassle to edit the PC sheets.

No fear doing that for me. I quite like making my own char sheets and usually based on the official one. I probably do it a REALLY clunky way but it keeps me quiet and out of trouble!

 

[CRKrueger]

My impression is that Simulationist games are a bit of a new thing for them, with the in-house YZE being more a Dramatist system.
They certainly seem to come up with good stuff, then discard it - eg shields absolutely should give a Boon on Parry, & I'll definitely be keeping that. Likewise whatever they decide, I'm keeping stacking Boons & Banes, which works brilliantly in play - a lot of stuff worked a lot better in play than I expected, a bit like my experience running 5e D&D for the first time. For me following the playtesting is proving very valuable in seeing under the bonnet & how best to house rule the system. I'll probably stick with whatever skills list they settle on, though - too much hassle to edit the PC sheets.

Heh, yeah FL don’t really do simulationist, not in the classical sense (RQ, RM, Harn, etc). Very much a new school approach. They do a lot of setting development though.

I think it’s different expectations.

FL wanted to do a FL-style Drakar och Demoner.

A lot of backers wanted Drakar och Demoner in English.

They’re also playing out the entire dev process on KS, so it’s bound to look slapdash compared to a finished product with no one knowing how chaotic or ordered the design process was.

 

[Acmegamer]

I haven’t really kept up with this as it doesn’t interest me but I am sad to hear the development hell it is currently going through. This is why I like to back kickstarters where the game is done but just needs art or maybe editing.

I've noted that most of my more recent backed projects have been more in this vein.


Nick J At first it felt like they were attempting to add a lot of MY0 mechanics onto DragonBane and make some sort of melded RPG. Which wasn't making me happy either, I'm happy with all the MY0 based rpgs I have and I've backed almost every Kickstarter that they've done. I just didn't want another flavor of MY0.

This isn't what I was expecting nor wanting for Dragonbane. Now it definitely feels like they're all over the place just scrabbling at what ever and tossing it at the wall with no coherent plan. No idea how it's going to turn out honestly and I don't think they do either.

 

[sharps54]

“A lot of backers wanted Drakar och Demoner in English.”

I didn’t back it but if I did that is what I would want. Same with a translated version of Western or the translated Elric RPG QuickStart they tagged on the board game campaign. I don’t want a modified version, I want the existing version in English.

 

[Vile Traveller]

A lot of backers wanted Drakar och Demoner in English.

Actually, looking at both the Swedish and English forums (Google Translate works!) it seems to be the Swedish fans with a long history with the game who want it to be more like BRP. Most of the English posters seem to have joined the Kickstarter on the strength of the quickstart, and have been disappointed by the direction the successive drafts are taking. I include myself in the latter in that I prefer almost none of the changes to the quickstart. There are already innumerable BRP-alikes in the English language, we don't really need another one.

 

[CRKrueger]

Actually, looking at both the Swedish and English forums (Google Translate works!) it seems to be the Swedish fans with a long history with the game who want it to be more like BRP. Most of the English posters seem to have joined the Kickstarter on the strength of the quickstart, and have been disappointed by the direction the successive drafts are taking. I include myself in the latter in that I prefer almost none of the changes to the quickstart. There are already innumerable BRP-alikes in the English language, we don't really need another one.

I guess that's the question. Is this English Dragons and Demons version X.X or is it something new entirely?

Pinnacle made it pretty clear Savage Rifts was changing some things to fit into the SWADE system. Same with Savage Pathfinder.

FL billed the game as one foot firmly standing on decades of Swedish gaming while the other is in "modern and innovative" Free League design.

In other words, they claimed to be doing two different things and as a result, no one thinks FL are standing firmly enough in the design space they like.

Doing the tried and true "taking our new school kinda narrative system and custom tailoring it for a specific setting/experience" (ala, Cortex, 2d20, M:Y0 etc.) is one thing.

Taking a BRP/Pendragon clone and running it through the ACME ™ New School Design Transformation Machine © is something else.

I hope they're not under any pressure to print and can take the time to square all the circles.

 

[Vile Traveller]

I hope they're not under any pressure to print and can take the time to square all the circles.

The last estimate I saw was 3rd quarter 2023, so quite a long time. I'm honestly surprised we're already on the 3rd beta, I doubt it's giving people time to really playtest as opposed to dektop-analyse between updates.

 

[S'mon]

FL billed the game as one foot firmly standing on decades of Swedish gaming while the other is in "modern and innovative" Free League design.

In other words, they claimed to be doing two different things and as a result, no one thinks FL are standing firmly enough in the design space they like.

For me, it definitely hits the sweet spot. A grittier scarier more immersive 5e D&D!

 

[CRKrueger]

For me, it definitely hits the sweet spot. A grittier scarier more immersive 5e D&D!

I hope it succeeds. If it’s even remotely BRP-like, I could use 40 years of content translated from Swedish to steal shamelessly and fold, spindle and mutilate.

 

[MacDhomnuill]

The last estimate I saw was 3rd quarter 2023, so quite a long time. I'm honestly surprised we're already on the 3rd beta, I doubt it's giving people time to really playtest as opposed to dektop-analyse between updates.

I feel like a lot of the comments on the official forum are definitely desktop reactions. I switched my home game from 5e to the beta when iteration 2 came out and so far I feel like most changes have been improvements. I am however keeping the boon for using a shield, use blackjack resolution for contested rolls and continue to use motivations in conjunction with weaknesses. Overall I feel like many of the commenters are either 5e folks or less experienced gamers who are looking for the perfect game RAW vs more broadly experienced GMs/Players who are comfortable with table ruling things.

 

[zcthu3]

I've not kept up with the Beta releases but from what I'm reading its starting to feel pretty clunky and cludged together. Like a bad heartbreaker. That could be down to them trying to accomodate lots of opinions, etc assuming of course its a valid statement and not me just missing things.

Eh, not really. Overall the changes have (IMO) been an improvement and they are clearly iterative. The really needed to expand the skill list, perhaps not as much as they did, but it was (IMO) too small and dominated by weapon skills. Now they are tidying up what they’ve got. The way Professions work is an improvement (move away from very rigid classes to more packages to get you started; again IMO).

There are three main things that are still coming up on the FL English boards.

1. The lack of attributes for NPCs and which are needed to address some effects - the information is there, but you have to back-calculate from derived attributes. For some strange reason there appears to be some resistance to address this, although they’ve gone part of the way with defaulting for skill checks.

2. The resisted rolls thing - resisted rolls are meant to be rare so I anticipate this is a case of trying to be consistent (roll low) for something that won’t really come up very often.

3. Comments about the skills being unbalanced against each other - IMO this isn’t really a problem in a game where anyone can advance any skill. Professions aren’t classes - they’re starting packages. After you’ve started the fact that some skills are more focused is less of an issue as you can only put one advancement mark in each skill anyway. That’s not to say they couldn’t be smoothed but it’s not as doom and gloom (IMO) as some people seem to think.

P.S. I’ll put my hand-up as an English speaker who wanted an English version of Drakar och Demoner. I have a bunch of fantasy and BRP games both but still wanted it.

 

[S'mon]

I hope it succeeds. If it’s even remotely BRP-like, I could use 40 years of content translated from Swedish to steal shamelessly and fold, spindle and mutilate.

The heart of the system is definitely BRP (with d20s instead of d%) and that doesn't look to change. The 5e-isms like the Death 'Saves', fast healing via short & long rests, and Heroic Abilities (Feats) are nice for me, but it looks like they could even be excised if you want. Even the Boons/Banes system of stacking Advantage/Disadvantage could be converted to a modifier on the d20 roll, though personally I love it.

The thing I really like about it is how it takes BRP and rationalises the bits that I didn't like, such as how to calculate starting skills, or some things about how combat works. Playing Runequest I really disliked the way every character got a free Parry so that fights dragged on interminably.

 

[Acmegamer]

Actually, looking at both the Swedish and English forums (Google Translate works!) it seems to be the Swedish fans with a long history with the game who want it to be more like BRP. Most of the English posters seem to have joined the Kickstarter on the strength of the quickstart, and have been disappointed by the direction the successive drafts are taking. I include myself in the latter in that I prefer almost none of the changes to the quickstart. There are already innumerable BRP-alikes in the English language, we don't really need another one.

I'm an English speaker and one of those who want it more like BRP based than MY0 which put me at odds with many apparently, due to the reactions I received for pointing out similarities to MY0 mechanics. We don't need another MY0 variation and that's what it feels like to me.

 

[gruagach]

I backed this game (rare for me these days). I love the action economy. I like the Boons/Banes stacking. I like the new more freeform professions. I like the "mark a condition to re-roll" mechanic (which is, yes, a translation from the Year Zero Engine). I really like the monster rules (as someone above said - it makes monsters like a force of nature in play).

I'm not a fan of the skills expansion, per se. Maybe the game needed more skills, but the choice made to add more skills don't work for me.

Ultimately, I do think this will be a d20 based game that "feels" like BRP. And, as is always the case for me, I'll be adding in copious house rules.

 

[Mankcam]

I haven't run the numbers (and I won't, I admit), but the argument is that the extra complication of "highest roll under wins, unless it's a 1" is not worth it because the situation hardy comes up in play. If that's the case, I'm all for it - I gave up complicated "realism" in RPGs many years ago, ain't nobody got time for tgat in the 21st century.

That's why the growing skill list, disappoints me, however. It's like the game has split in two since the quickstart, one half trying to be fast and fun (yet still BRP -descendant), while the pushback from the older DoD players is adding back all sorts of crunch that doesn't gel with the original mission statement. FL should step back and look at the big picture, and come down on one side or the other.

I do at this point still prefer the quickstart over all 3 betas.

Due to using a D20 instead of percentile dice, I would like to think this system should run very straight forward and edge towards the shallow end of the pond in terms of game mechanics, rather than get weighed down in the deep waters of heavy crunch. The skill list on the quickstart character sheet looks fine, but getting beyond this in size may start to feel a bit cumbersome for this kind of system. Skill bloat is not a good sign.

I didn't back the Dragonbane kickstarter, but I'm interested in the finished product.
It will have to be much lighter than BRP however, otherwise there's no point for me to try it out, I've got just the right amount of crunch I need with Mythras and WFRP. This game needs to feel much lighter, otherwise even all that great artwork will not get me buying it.

 

[finarvyn]

I get the feeling that the designers want to go for a light, modern set or rules, but many of the long-time fans of the system want something heavier, and more like the system they’re used to.

Another case of inconsistent design goals leading to an incoherent outcome?

What I WISH they would do is to put together core rules a la the quickstart, then create an "advanced" rulebook with a bunch of fun options.
** Want more skills? Try these!
** Want more realistic combat? Here are some ideas!

That sort of thing. I'm still excited about the game, but I agree that the beta is headed in a different direction from the one advertised in the KS.

 

[zcthu3]

What I WISH they would do is to put together core rules a la the quickstart, then create an "advanced" rulebook with a bunch of fun options.
** Want more skills? Try these!
** Want more realistic combat? Here are some ideas!

That sort of thing. I'm still excited about the game, but I agree that the beta is headed in a different direction from the one advertised in the KS.

I am not disagreeing that the Betas aren’t necessarily what some people imagined (based on the quickstart) the game would be, but I think what we are seeing is what was advertised. I just checked the Kickstarter page and it says:

‘Drakar och Demoner is Scandinavia's first and biggest tabletop RPG, originally launched in 1982. Now, we celebrate its 40th anniversary with a brand new and reimagined edition, with one foot firmly planted in the heritage of decades of Swedish gaming and the other in the modern and innovative game design for which Free League Publishing is know worldwide“ (emphasis added).

So I expect there’s a whole part of those backing the game (me included) who expected it to quite connected to earlier editions of Drakar och Demoner, but with some modern initiatives. Then there’s a quick start which proposed/indicated a really streamlined game that, I understand, was quite different to earlier editions. FL were clear however, that the QuickStart wasn’t the final game as immediately below it says:

”Please note that the rules and text are subject to change. You are welcome to post your feedback on it in this designated thread on our forums”

I think the feedback has been, apparently mainly from the Swedish but also from part of the English speaking backers, that the QuickStart version had drifted too far from the bolded statement - the foot has strayed too far from the heritage of the game. Free League clearly expected to change the game in response to feedback and that’s what they’ve done. It’s not what everyone wants, but I don’t think what’s happened is at all inconsistent with what the Kickstarter said, and (presumably) is consistent with the majority of the feedback (noting that I’ve only seen the English feedback).

 

[Cross Planes]

So if they attacker succeeds, and the defender succeeds, the defender always wins?

I hate this. Combat loses so much dynamism without Blackjack or MOS. I remember encountering this in Mongoose RQ 1 after Sprange had bragged that it could model the Duel of the Fates in Phantom Menace. There is so much design space squandered by this decision.

There are rules that come along that just make sense. Ascending AC, Advantage/Disadvantage, Blackjack, etc.

Use the new tech and then address the "old school" in an appendix or sidebar as optional.

 

[S'mon]

I hate this. Combat loses so much dynamism without Blackjack or MOS.

The Dragonbane combat felt extremely dynamic to me, due to how the to hit vs parry/dodge system interacts with the initiative and reaction systems. Not to mention the tactical element of the willpower-fuelled heroic abilities, notably Veteran. Nothing like my memory of playing Runequest combat, which fitted your description.

BTW I was sceptical too until I actually played it.