Dune doesn’t explicitly discount consistency and continuity.
Neither is it absent a clearly defined set of rules with examples. The conflict chapter is basically only a clear set of rules with five sets of examples.
Like any system you can play Dune with less dice rolls or roll as often as you like. In any game the question is ‘do I succeed’ and if you want to say ‘sure, you’re pretty good’ you can do that. I don’t think we said anywhere ‘you must always follow the rules at all times’.
Dune does the same as anything else -
What do you want to achieve?
How are you going to achieve it?
Make a roll (or not) to see if you succeed.
The difference in Dune is that the players decide how to approach the roll.
It has a very solid rules system underpinning what it does so you can narrate and role play over the top of a clearly defined set of actions and consequences.
I’m really struggling to see where you are seeing Dune not let you play as you should.
If you can give me an example of making a roll that shows your point I’ll happily see if I can answer the question.
A player can spend 2 Momentum to - within the narrative - create an Asset, correct?
The example given IIRC was a Security Access Card.
But within a different narrative thread that Asset could be an Ornithopter, or a Stillsuit, or an Armoured Tank.
How is there any consistency there?
But the moment that Scene is over the Asset disappears.
How?
Why?
So a character can “magic up” an Asset, and then at some indeterminate point in the future (because the length of a scene is variable) that Asset just disappears.
The rules for creating assets with Momentum clearly state that it has to make sense in the scene, and give the GM final say over what that means. There is some form of this same concept in plenty of other more narratively-driven RPG’s. The most recent edition of Star Wars comes to mind, where you can spend Advantage and Triumphs to add details to a scene in the same sort of way. But again, only if the GM agrees that the narrative appearance of those details makes sense. The only difference is that Star Wars has been out longer, and so there are a lot more specific examples spread out through the books of those details that can be bought. I’m sure there are other games out there that use a similar sort of mechanic.
I mostly get how Assets are supposed to work. The big thing I’d like to see regarding their use is guidelines on what Assets would be available to a house as a whole. Because with some types of Conflicts (Warfare comes immediately to mind), PC’s are more likely to be using House assets rather than personal ones. In a pinch, I could just let my players know what makes sense or what doesn’t in a specific conflict, but something more specific there would be extremely helpful.
I appreciate those who defend the abstract nature of the system, but I recall it’s used far less abstractly in Conan and Dishonoured, not to mention Infinity. Not sure how Star Trek works but one would think that Dune could fall between sci-fi and fantasy and thus between Conan and Infinity. But it is abstracted even farther.
I have never been one for using miniatures in an RPG. I like to keep the narrative going. Maps are all and good, but once players are pushing figures around to get that extra hit bonus, I am out. So I like chrome but I like wargames to be wargames and RPGs to be RPGs.
When I read the section on using momentum to create temporary assets, I thought it meant grabbing a chair for a weapon or making note of a terrain feature that could be used for protection, things which are natural features of the surroundings and would not seem to be something you create using momentum. The idea that a player could suddenly say “I spend to momentum to notice that my assailant favors his left side and so I am going to take advantage of that” is ok, but having a player suddenly have a piece of information that gives an advantage (like extortion or blackmail) which is rules legal, could seriously take a narrative in an unplanned direction.
What I think people are failing to see here is that some of us have wanted a Dune game for decades, and expected something more “chrome” like in its creation. Not a far stretch for Modiphius, as I have yet to find anything they make not exactly what I expected it to be. Dune is Sci-fi, and Modiphius sci-fi in general is stellar (no pun intended). So I expected Dune to have a few more stats. It’s not a crime that it doesn’t, it’s all a matter of expectation.
However, if your want stats, just make them. I have gone through my learning curve, and broke out all my other 2d20 systems, and have figures I like.
One thing I would like to add: maybe the three pages wasted on how not to offend people in a game and how to be inclusive and how to respect blah blah blah could have been better used explaining how the spice works, getting the focus and traits sorted out, maybe any number of a hundred things better than worrying about triggering players. I learned to run games in the days before everything was sexualized and before everyone was offended by everything. If I have to run a game where players have a safe word to keep from being made uncomfortable, that safe word is going to be embarrassing and that player will never be invited back again. My games are an escape from reality and this reality does not have a place in my games. Just saying. Crybabies stay home
This sounds like a lot of my games outside of Modiphius to be honest.
My players need a car for some scheme they’ve cooked up and one of them has the Drive skill, fine they now have a car.
The Momentum just puts it on a more formal footing.
We reference a TV series called Leverage a lot. In that they use flashbacks a lot for “Ah, but actually I set up X” moments. I see this as a similar thing. “Ah, but actually we contacted someone earlier looking for blackmail information” or similar.
That is how I see the asset creation system at least. And it is just a continuation of how we Roleplay. Assuming that counts as Roleplay.
I get someone being disappointed because a game or supplement isn’t exactly what they expected. It has happened to me before, and no doubt will happen again. But I have seen some people here in this thread complaining whose problems with the Dune game were both much more specific than “not what I expected” or “not crunchy enough for my taste” and at the same time, inaccurate. So I don’t see anyone failing to realize that people might have wanted something a bit more defined and/or rules-heavy, but rather I see people pointing out inaccuracies in some of the more specific complaints being made.
As for Momentum being used to create an asset that you feel could take a narrative in an unplanned direction, that is likely why the GM is given final say over those spends. It gives the GM leeway to be as loose or as tight as they want with what Momentum can create.
What I don’t get is how can 2 Momentum represent both a Security Access Card and a Tank in the same scene.
PC’s are attempting to infiltrate an enemy military camp, so the Security Card and Tank are perfectly logical things to find there; in fact the Players may think the GM was rigging things against them if they didn’t find them.
And as for “GM has final say” that 100% has to be rooted in the logic of the narrative, otherwise the players never trust the GM. So if the PCs are infiltrating a military camp then both a Security Access Card and a Tank better be there or something is wrong.
But I can’t see any narratively logical way for the Security Access Card and the Tank to a) cost the same in Momentum or b) simply vanish at the end of the scene in anything less than a completely contrived manner.
If the “create an Asset with Momentum” mechanic has to be there, then there logically has to be scaled cost for Assets of differing magnitudes.
Going to be honest, sounds nothing like any game I have run or played in over 35 years.
If my players “need” and “asset” then several things must happen for them to get it.
It needs to be narratively consistent for them to have the ability to use such an Asset.
It needs to be narratively consistent for that Asset to be present in the current “scene”.
They need to Roleplay finding, accessing and using that Asset.
I see 1) and 2) perfectly fine in the Dune stuff I have read so far; 3) is conspicuously absent, and replaced with “just spend 2 points of - what is in in effect - a never-ending resource pool”.
I don’t particularly see that as Roleplay; it is more akin to a resource management strategy game; and given the resource in question is effectively never-ending, a bad resource management strategy game at that.
Once you tell players there is a rule, in the actual rulebook, that lets them just “magic out of thin air” anything they need, almost whenever they need it, “GM leeway” has effectively been thrown out the window - because the GM is going to have to justify it to the players every time s/he says “no, that’s not appropriate”.
As a GM I 100% believe in logical consistency within the narrative; its part of the reason I have players now who have been playing my games for 30 or more years. I simply do not do “rabbit out of the magic hat” stuff, even it at rare times it seem like I have - behind the scenes it is all 100% narratively logical, and the PCs will be given opportunities to discover that, and my players trust me that that will always be the case.
Having a mechanic that lets anything at all be “pulled out the hat” any time the players need, and which permits players to create anything at all from a Document to a Nuclear Weapon all for the same cost, with absolutely no regard for the in-game impact of that Asset take narrative logic, screws it up into a ball, and throws it out of the window.
I’ve used WFRP rules and this does not describe that system - the degrees of success/failure is very nebulous and aside from Dark Heresy 2e the inputs are also minimally defined, outside combat specifically. Also most RPGs I’ve read have fewer examples than given in Dune, not to mention vastly more limited scope
Sounds to me like you expect RPGs to be written like computer coding
Have you played WFRP 4th Ed?
There is no nebulous outcome, you know who “wins” every roll, and the degree of success is mathematically exact.
I know that if I roll under my Skill by 21 I have 2 Successes - every. single. time.
As I mentioned Roleplay is a wide church. I do see this as an aspect of Roleplay as my group plays it.
The mechanic isn’t new. There are versions of it in Roleplay games dating back to the original Torg when I started RPing back in the 90’s.
If it clashes so badly with your game style just tell your players you are House ruling it out.
I’ve fiddled with systems in almost every game I’ve run to make it work better for my table. Dune will probably be the same as my campaign develops.
Unless you have a table of rules lawyers who insist on following every rule exactly (unfortunately I have known some like that) I’d assume they would be willing to accept it to make things run smoother and have a fun game.
Mostly I am echoing some of the other comments here.
Assets are emphatically not ‘magiced up’
Each situation and scene implies there may be other stuff available, or that players have more equipment than on their character sheet.
Personally, I’d rather than that a tired equipment list with 50 foot of rope.
Yes, it would be ridiculous to suddenly find and ornithopter in the street. But it is perfectly reasonable to declare the street you are in is near a landing pad with one.
It ‘vanishes’ at the end of the scene not in a puff of smoke but because it isn’t useful anymore. If players want another one they can find one later. It might even be the same one if they are assumed to give it to the House.
Assets also don’t need a division between a tank or a security keypad.
An asset is either useful in a scene or it isn’t.
If you want to hack a security system, a tank is no use at all and a keycard might be the decisive asset you need.
Sure, you don’t like the system, I get that. But I think you are misrepresenting it because it doesn’t do what you expect.
It is more abstract that Trek, but to be honest you can convert them pretty easily if you’d rather use that system. Given all you need to do is make a weapons list and give each character a Stress level there is no reason not to.
But what Dune does allow is to play as agents or architects, which is one of the main reasons for the greater abstraction, which is one of the elements essential to a political game like Dune.
So you are saying, in effect, any given scene has only one narrative purpose, and only one solution?
Because, unless you are the above makes no narrative sense at all.
Back to infiltrating a military base:
Security Access Card: it can open the door, and maybe (depending on narrative) be used to divert enemy Assets (gun turrets).
Tank: it can blow the doors open, destroy the gun turrets, and rout the entire infantry contingent, while at the same time providing protection for the PCs from enemy small arms fire.
Now, one of those is obviously of more immediate benefit than the other.
Furthermore, while the Security Access Card is likely to be revoked once it is realised it is in the wrong hands (especially if the GM is trying to foster a sense of narrative logic); the Tank can be taken to be used later - providing ongoing protection, ongoing offensive capability, and a means of transportation.
This is all within the same narrative scene.
You still think the Tank is (in resource costs) of the exact same value as the Security Access Card?
Seriously?
I am trying hard to get my head around all this, but the descriptions given so far only highlight the obvious inconsistencies with the Rules System, not resolve them.
As an aside, just recieved my GM Toolkit: full marks for production values once again the screen is absolutely gorgeous, and the tables will be invaluable.
To be honest, the more I think about it the more like a CCG it really is: instead of waiting to draw the card you know is in the deck, you spend momentum for it, which is like taking the turns to draw.
Maybe what is really needed is a glossary of assets and suggested ratings. Want to make a master crafted Lasgun, look up its assets in the glossary and make one. CRAFTING seems to be important and yet not treated as such. I know it’s not MINECRAFT but if you can make something suddenly to solve a problem. That’s MINECRAFT or a game where you craft magic as you play. I think Mage did that as well as Ars Magica.
No, I’m saying exactly the opposite, which I had thought was clear.
To reiterate - the GM tells the PCs the situation, the PCs then decide how to approach it and what assets (if any) they might want to use.
The PCs can use ANY approach and use ANY asset if they can make it make narrative sense enough for the GM to agree.
They want to blow the door open with a tank, fine. They want to use a keycard, also fine.
Both the tank and the keycard will then be used to grant a bonus or allow a roll if the GM thinks using them in the way the PCs describe will help.
“We’re going to blow open the door.”
“How are you going to do that?”
“We’ll use the tank.”
“That’ll do it.”
Before you then insist it makes no difference what asset you use, this is also not the case.
Blowing open the door will undoubtably make a noise and bring guards, using a keycard won’t. But using a keycard might take longer and time may be a factor.
As such, yes absolutely both items are equally useful for the task at hand. A tank isn’t innately more useful just because its big and has a gun. Sometimes those might even be disadvantages.
However, if guards come and you have a tank, it’ll be a lot more useful fighting them than the keycard. Remember than no one said you can only use an asset for one thing, if fact thats the point.
it sounds like you really don’t. Dune is a highly mechanical narrative game, so shocking to some they may not consider it an RPG at all. Adventure Strategy game? Story based Board-less tabletop game? Much like the actual rules, call it whatever you want but its effect is the same.
Other 2D20 games are closer to ‘traditional’ RPGs. “I move up to the cargo boxes for cover and fire my rifle” would be 2 actions.
In Dune, you have to be somewhat mechanical. "I move up subtly and create trait: cover. I succeed and keep the initiative and then I subtly move my lasgun one zone to the enemy smuggler in the open. I keep the initiative again and use my lasgun asset to attack him. Since conflict is always a contest, the smuggler rolls 2D and gets 1 success. Because I kept initiative twice, I have +2 difficulty for a total of 3 successes needed to hit the smuggler.
If you read the Dune example and thought “what a confusing, wasteful way to play an RPG” then you don’t like Dune. There may be no way to cure that.