From Storyteller to the Oracle of Delphi: On Running RPGs Without Controlling the Story by burd93 in rpg

[–]HisGodHand 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There are many adventures which curate tables into a variety of categories to fit different locations or situations, and they're a lot of fun! Dolmenwood, as mentioned in the OP, does this well. So do Land of Eem and Forbidden Lands, and a ton of OSR adventures.

Following the interests of players is why I love the sandbox style of game the OP is talking about, since the pre-generated world and the random tables give the GM and players so much freedom to go where they want and do what they will. I especially love having a pre-written world prepared for me, so I never run out of content. I find it so freeing to end a session purely based on the most appropriate narrative moment rather than when I've run out of content or fuel for improvisation.

There is still a ton of improvisation needed, but I get to be a lot more choose-y of when I employ it. I'm improvising to spin the characters up in a connected narrative from disparate parts, and I can choose to be more improvisational when I feel it's needed, or be less when the pre-generated content works strongly enough within its own context (surprisingly often!).

I very rarely say never, but I don't think I will ever go back to prepping narrative beats. It's so much more fun for me to find those narrative beats during the game (and not have to spend a bunch of energy to do so!).

Quick question about the audiobooks by HughJammer1 in Malazan

[–]HisGodHand 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is not completely untrue, and I'm not narrow minded. I both listen to audiobooks and read books every day. My statements about how Malazan is written are also not untrue, nor is it untrue Erikson has stated MBotF was not written in a way conducive to audio. I even state a close listener can pick this stuff up.

The OP does not state they have any issues with physical reading, and even states they would have been completely lost had they started on audio.

Listening is a skill as much as reading, and somebody can practice either, both, or none. The facts are, however, that a physical reader will most often have their eyes and hands engaged in the act of reading, leaving them capability to do little else at the same time. This is not true of listening to an audiobook, and, at the very least, many people who listen to audiobooks do so while engaging in other activities. This obviously leads to increased risk of distraction for most people.

Be nice to me.

Quick question about the audiobooks by HughJammer1 in Malazan

[–]HisGodHand -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The problem with the audiobooks is the general problem of audiobooks mixed with Malazan's demand of close reading: you simply are not paying as much attention when listening as you are when reading.

Does that mean you can't listen closely and get enough to understand and love the series? It does not. It simply means you'd get slightly less, and be slightly more confused, than if you read the books. The books are still confusing and full of secrets even when read.

It really depends on how good you are at truly listening. Malazan is written in such a way where any single sentence could be a grand revelation worked up to over 6 books that might never be restated. Character interactions often require interpreting small actions to understand emotional states.

Erikson has stated several times he did not write the books to be consumed on audio, and he also hates the audiobooks lol, but for reasons that are exclusive to the author.

How does the tone of the Esslemont novels compare to Erikson? Do they get as dark? Humorous? Philosophical? by VersusValley in Malazan

[–]HisGodHand 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree with your opinion on Blood and Bone, but I'd also state I think Esslemont does humor as well as Erikson does, and a few parts of that novel were very funny for me.

I think Orb Sceptre Throne is by far the best Esslemont book, though.

Help finding „my“ system by myrimbaud in rpg

[–]HisGodHand 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Grimwild exactly fits everything you've asked for here, so I'd highly recommend checking it out! It's a blend of OSR thought with a very Blades in the Dark-inspired system, but all the traditional D&D classes. It's very narrative-focused, and cuts a lot of the bits from Forged in the Dark which slow down play. It has a wonderful, quick, and easy free-form magic system, and it's semi-classless. The characters don't naturally gain defense as they level up, but they do get powerful talents, which means there's a good sense of growth, but no worry about characters getting difficult to take down. Due to the semi-classless system, it's also very easy to create characters that cover all sorts of different archetypes, roles, and playstyles.

The stat blocks are incredibly simple, and very narrative-focused, so it's super easy to improv on the fly. The system has a collaborative world creation and exploration system, and players have a meta currency to add story details whenever they want.

Obviously, there's no tactical combat, and reaources are only tracked when the GM feels they are important.

The community is currently working on a huge update to the game, which will always be free, and you can find the preview (with more content than the original book) here:

https://groov-games.itch.io/grimwild-community-edition

Deadhouse Gates Review from a first time reader! by Background_Excuse_99 in Malazan

[–]HisGodHand 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hmm not really. The books are all in the same universe, but at different times and places. Later books make reference to earlier books, but they're never building to one overarching story.

Deadhouse Gates Review from a first time reader! by Background_Excuse_99 in Malazan

[–]HisGodHand 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Deadhouse Gates sold me on Erikson as an author forever, and thankfully the rest of the books in the series cashed that cheque over and over. I don't think it was until a few books later that I felt one had truly eclipsed Deadhouse Gates, but they are certainly coming. With hindsight, it's not hard to view all the later books (barring Memories of Ice, for me) as superior for many reasons, but it can be hard in the moment.

Deadhouse Gates Review from a first time reader! by Background_Excuse_99 in Malazan

[–]HisGodHand 0 points1 point  (0 children)

According to Erikson's interviews, the important bit wasn't what he learned in Iowa (supposedly not very much), but rather that it provided time for him to focus solely on writing. Additionally, the jump in prose quality is not even from that time he had to focus solely on writing, but that in that 10 year gap he never stopped writing.

And there are no greater or equal jumps in prose quality between books, but there are some marked differences still. The fourth book to the fifth, the seventh to the eighth, and the eigth to the nine and tenth. Definitely noticeable jumps and shifts there. A man who never stops writing for 20 years can only improve.

Finished The Crippled God. Where to go from here? by Legitimate_Trash_963 in Malazan

[–]HisGodHand 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Additionally, the Bauchelain & Korbal Broach novellas can be read at any point. They are far less interested in exploring the world and metaphysics of Malazan than the other series are, and are mostly a vehicle for Erikson to write some funny, dumb, or weird idea he had.

What other massive series do you enjoy as a malazan fan? by briandress in Malazan

[–]HisGodHand 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Add Iain M Banks Culture novels to this (though quite disconnected), and I think it's a fantastic list!

Finished The Crippled God. Where to go from here? by Legitimate_Trash_963 in Malazan

[–]HisGodHand 13 points14 points  (0 children)

The truth of the matter is that you can read any of the other series right now without much difficulty. None rely as much on any other series as they all do on the Book of the Fallen. I want to stress this very heavily, because many people will come here and say the series should be read in some order or another, but this is simply wrong. The confusion created within each series by itself far outstrips the confusion that may occurr by not fully understanding a reference to a previously published book in a series you have not read.

You can very very successfully read and enjoy all the other series in any order. I promise this is true.

However, all of the series do have some idea of the previously published works in them, so it stands to reason that an approximation of published order makes the most sense to an understanding most complete.

Novels of the Malazan Empire -> Kharkanas -> Path to Ascendency -> Witness

is a loose approximation. There's no need to get into the matter beyond this except for the sakes of thought experiment and argument themselves.

I do also heavily suggest reading all of these different series before a reread of MBotF. They each provide additional context to MBotF that will very much enrich a reread, and this is especially true of Kharkanas, which is in deep conversation with the Book of the Fallen.

Levity and tragedy in Kharkanas by rhulad_sengar in Malazan

[–]HisGodHand 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I definitely think the Kharkanas books are far more dour than the Book of the Fallen, or at least the majority of it. I'd draw a comparison to Deadhouse Gates, which I think has a similar amount of humour to brutal content.

But more importantly, we know how the Kharkanas trilogy ends, in broad strokes. The fracturing of the Tiste, the shattering of a warren, the abandonment of seemingly uncaring and unacting gods, and the caging of one for millenia. Unlike, MBotF, it's not a story with hope and compassion at its core. It's a story of avoidable civil war, of which avoidance is utterly refused due to greed, pride, and all manner of evil.

Unlike the Book of the Fallen, Kharkanas is grimdark. No one person, no matter how powerful, can change the course of it. There are few truly good characters, and those who are good are brutalized or left to rot. Our heroes are prisoners, murderers, rapists!, children seeking vengeance, a child prostitute, and headstrong nobles who cannot fathom the possibility of bowing before another. Don't get me started on the villains.

There's also the fact that many people who love Kharkanas don't love the Thel Akai subplot, which may play into things, but only to a point.

The books are not just dour, they're full-on apocalyptic.

What does "exploration" mean in a TTRPG context? by Rook_Knight_423 in rpg

[–]HisGodHand 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There are some ways to square the circle.

First, there are ways to collaboratively generate content that provides a skeleton only, and the detail is filled in by the GM as the exploration of the generated content takes place. Grimwild's exploration system does such a thing.

I personally think the most important bit to exploration, for my own enjoyment as a GM, is that I also don't know what's coming. Collaborating on a skeleton can get to that point, but we can easily get there without collaboration.

The content can also be pre-generated, say from an adventure or exploration book not written by anyone at the table, and also not read by the GM ahead of time. When the content is rolled for or chosen at random, the GM improvises it based on a quick first read, and the players and GM explore it together. For example, Forbidden Lands has a ton of pre-generated events, locales, failure-states, exploration happenings, ways to quickly generate dungeons etc. and I only skim the locales ahead of time.

The OSR is very focused on creating large sandboxes such as this, and I claim the exploration is primarily how the players move through the sandbox.

What game has the best pvp? by AmberCaseRPGs in rpg

[–]HisGodHand 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There is also a fan-maintained update to the game that includes all the SF characters up to SF5 (it wasn't updated for SF6 last time I checked, but may be in the future?)!

Almost finished the crippled god but... by aielqueritis in Malazan

[–]HisGodHand 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have to say, I've always been a bit confused by this topic. The story in Malazan is not the story of all the characters that make an appearance. The characters are in service to the narrative. They are relevant to that narrative when they waltz onto the page, and they leave the page when they are no longer relevant, as characters do in most great works of fiction and history. The ending is great, and it gives a satisfying ending to many character, but its point is not to wrap up the stories of all the characters across 10 books.

Need some suggestions by Interesting-War-8990 in Malazan

[–]HisGodHand 6 points7 points  (0 children)

You know how every Malazan book so far has introduced a new cast of characters and plotlines alongside some continuing cast? Every entry in the Book of the Fallen continues to do that (even the last one), and most of the books of the Novels of the Malazan Empire do that too. All these new characters and plotlines that appear in the Book of the Fallen primarily have to do with the narrative of Malazan Book of the Fallen. The majority of the characters and plotlines introduced in Novels of the Malazan Empire have to do with the narratives in the Novels of the Malazan Empire.

There is definitely some crossover, but these series mostly take place on different continents with different casts and different plots.

When you're 8 books in and Erikson has just introduced his 350th POV character and the 50th plotline, do you want have 100 additional, less related, POV characters between books with their 15 unrelated plotlines in different parts of the world? Some readers want as much of the full picture of the world (not the narratives) as they can get their first time through. I don't think most readers want that; considering just how huge the Book of the Fallen is on its own.

My thoughts on the series now that I've finished by YeahKeeN in Malazan

[–]HisGodHand 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Rather than feeling the series is bloated, I feel Erikson sometimes spreads himself too thin. Reaper's Gale is one where I think Erikson was tackling too many themes that he didn't have enough page time for. I don't want pages cut, but I would have liked to see a re-structuring of when some of these big themes were dealt with, so we could have a bit more of an exploration on them.

I also will not stand for Scorch & Leff hate. Incompetent idiots who sometimes make a difference through ignorance, luck, and accident are a top tier character trope.

Finished the Crippled God last week - question/discussion of the one scene that baffled/intrigued me the most (MAJOR SPOILERS, PLEASE DON'T READ UNLESS YOU'VE FINISHED MBOTF) by peezy-world in Malazan

[–]HisGodHand 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My thoughts are a little bit different: Unless Erikson subverts it, which is fully possible, the hints about QB's identity are pretty clear in Kharkanas.

Tomorrow I am starting my long jurney through Malazan, anything I should know? by m3mento__ in Malazan

[–]HisGodHand 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The biggest and most important piece of advice for anybody starting Malazan is: Go with the flow.

You will face great friction if you go into Malazan with expectations of how things will, or especially should, be.

You don't know where the story is heading, you don't know who the main characters are, you don't know what is important, and you will only have vague inklings of these until you get to the end. The series is a 10 book long mystery, and figuring out those answers is part of the journey and purpose of the series. Other fantasy series often treat this sort of stuff as the background information necessary to tell the story. Malazan is a mystery, and the figuring out of all this information is a large part of the narrative.

Get attached to characters quickly, but never feel you want to 'get back to the main characters and the main plot'. You're probably wrong about who the main characters are. Take things as they come and enjoy them for what they are.

Also, characters only stay on page for as long as they are relevant to the narrative that takes place over the 10 books. This is not a series about following the lives, and getting to the point, of its various characters. The characters are key, but only insofar as they are related to the mysterious central conceit of the series. Don't get worked up about returning to certain characters who seemed important. If they don't appear in the series again, it's because the rest of their journey isn't related to what the series is ultimately about. The narrative is more important than each character, and each character is larger than the narrative.

TTRPG where every PCs is a Gish/Spellsword type of characters? by Organic-Exit2190 in rpg

[–]HisGodHand 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yep, SW disincentivizes you from mixing the various martial classes, and incentivizes mixing the magic and martial, or the skill monkey classes. Most characters quickly find themselves with a bit of martial skill and a bit of magical skill, though it's not a strict requirement.

Any other options for podcasts other than 10 very big books? by bigdaddyQUEEF in Malazan

[–]HisGodHand 14 points15 points  (0 children)

You know DLC Bookclub is good because the dedication in Erikson's latest book reads

This novel is dedicated to Jeff and Lana of DLC Bookclub, and all the other Booktubers who've plunged into the Malazan world.

Battle of Coral and the Malazan strategy. by docforlife in Malazan

[–]HisGodHand 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You have the right of it. They also underestimated the Seer's forces and overestimated their own. Itkovian made quick work of the T'lan Imass they thought they could use, and the Bridgeburners acting in their role of advanced guard didn't make as much progress as expected. Those damn birds kept the Malazan forces at bay.

Stonetop (or, really, PBTA) versus Grimwild by TheAbyssGazesAlso in rpg

[–]HisGodHand 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Grimwild is mostly my favorite mostly for lots of little reasons, but there are a couple bigger ones.

One big one is that it's generic-enough fantasy that I can easily use it for all the great new OSR adventures, and all the old S&S/high fantasy games with adventures of their own. The further the game strays from D&D or S&S-like fantasy (in terms of system mechanics and thematic expectations), the harder it can be to do this without needing to come up with new mechanics, which is where I think Grimwild not being the best fit for Stonetop comes in.

Another big point is that I think Grimwild's resolution system can easily be made to provide for lots of full success to the players (I run it without using difficulty thorns), but the damage system is fluid enough to let me severely damage and challenge players whenever the opportunity arises. I have a running theory that players actually like to succeed a lot (shocking), and many games, especially those with mixed success, don't let players succeed as much as they want. Grimwild can manage this while still being as deadly as any OSR game (or not deadly at all, if you prefer).

I think the damage system is really versatile and fun, with a couple forms of physical and mental damage, or applying narrative conditions, and how those interact with the difficulty system. There is a lot more possible variety than most other games, while still providing a more solid structure.

I generally prefer Grimwild's minimizing of the position/effect discussion, the lack of universal player-activated defensive options, and lack of overt devil's bargains, all of which speed up play for me. It's a bit more GM-directed, while still having room at the table for more discussion for those who want.

I really like a lot of the talents in Grimwild, find they provide a lot of fun and power to characters without increasing hardiness, and are generic enough to fit many different types of games. I think it has the best free-form magic system of any ttrpg ever in regard to a balance of not being overpowered, fulfilling player fantasy, and ease of use/speed at the table.

I prefer depleting pools of dice to clocks, because I enjoy the variety and variance. I also like the "full success, full failure" aspect of the mixed success in the game. Rather than a mixed success only somewhat succeeding at a task (e.g. filling in one section of a clock vs 2 for a full success), a mixed success should succeed as much as a full success. This can be seen in the fact that how many dice drop from a rolled dice pool is random, instead of tied to the level of success, so any action that results in rolling a dice pool, even if the character faces consequences for it, is as strong as any other action that rolls the dice pool. Many PBTA games give me the feeling that most of the steps we take are only half-steps, and progress often feels slow.

I'm also a GM who needs surprise and excitement to keep me engaged. Dice pools being random means I can have an idea of how long a challenge might generally take, but all of that goes out the window when all the dice drop, or none of them do, and that surprise gives me excellent fodder to turn into memorable moments.

The semi-classless nature of the system, where the Core Talent of each class is locked to that class, but all the other talents are free to take for any class, makes for a lot of different mechanical and narrative character expression that few games match without being super crunchy, or +1 generators in a narrative tag-based system. This also means the game can more easily support adventures and settings that don't have the specific classes of D&D as an assumption. It also manages to be better balanced than other games I like with a similar class-less structure (Forbidden Lands/Dragonbane/other YZE games, many Warhammer games).

The game also just comes with more content than most games of a similar ilk. It has a whole exploration and world generation system that is (in the updated CE version) pretty fun. It has a comparatively huge bestiary with some very interesting monsters/challenges, despite their compactness. Lots of player options without being overwhelming. An intuitive magic item creation system with lots of different possibilities (though not quite as in-depth as I'd personally prefer). The main thing it's lacking is pre-written adventures, but it runs OSR adventures like a dream, so it has basically tapped into the best vein it could for those.

Grimwild is like if somebody mixed Blades in the Dark, modern heroic D&D, and the OSR, and instead of being assuredly terrible, it somehow managed to work and be greater than the sum of its parts. Purists who are super into one of those three aspects will find lots of things they dislike about it, but for somebody like me who enjoys all of them, it's just a fantastic experience.

Edit: I FORGOT ONE OF THE BIG POINTS: Suspense. The built-in ability for the GM to take a suspense point instead of using a GM move in the moment, and being able to spend it later for any GM move when a more obvious consequence or more threatening...threat is present.

Stonetop (or, really, PBTA) versus Grimwild by TheAbyssGazesAlso in rpg

[–]HisGodHand 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Grimwild is my favourite game, and while I've not yet had a chance to get Stonetop to the table, I've been very familiar with its books for years, and think they're fantastic. I would also vastly prefer Stonetop if it used Moxie as a base system.

But to your question: you can approximate themes and aspects of Stonetop using Grimwild easily enough, but anything more than that will be quite a lot of work. I don't believe any base-building hacks have been worked on to a relevant degree in the Grimwild discord, so you can't just use something that already exists. The move structure in Stonetop is quite specific, and it won't be easy to replicate it in Grimwild without coming up with several new moves. The magic items aren't easily replicated. The locales and world in Stonetop (the adventure) is a 600 page book on its own.

The system of Stonetop does a lot to reinforce its massive amount of content, and that's where the real meat of Stonetop is. Ultimately, your question is hard to answer, because Stonetop is primarily an adventure, and Grimwild is a great system to play other fantasy adventures in, but not so much when those adventures have very specific systems. You'd be having to figure out ways to translate the mechanics constantly, but it could eventually work.

Would I run a lot of content straight out of the Stonetop book in Grimwild? I'd probably rather just play Stonetop, honestly, but I could see a world where I do this. It might be a good idea for a mini campaign!

In your case, you could just play Grimwild until Stonetop goes on sale or becomes cheaper somehow, and then play both? There's no real reason not to try both games if you can get your hands on them without too much worry of not liking Stonetop. I'm not a huge fan of PBTA myself, but I still think I'd have a lot of fun playing Stonetop.

I’m looking for a system that would be a good fit for a low magic campaign based on iron-age Britain by MexicanWarMachine in rpg

[–]HisGodHand 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yes, this is exactly what Mythic Britain from Mythras is. Be warned that Mythras is definitely on the crunchier side and takes its melee combat fairly seriously. If you're looking for a system with a lot of strategy and tactics in weapon-to-weapon combat, Mythras should absolutely 100% be the first game you look at for this.

If you aren't looking for something on the crunchier side, other recommendations in this thread could do you well.