Modiphius.com  |  Modiphius Shop

Need better/indepth examples of

@demishadow23 I can’t claim any special insight into Dune or gaming in general, I just know how my various groups have always approached roleplay.

The way we view our games is as if they are TV Shows. We literally will talk about episodes and seasons when describing our games and where we are in them. Leverage is frequently cited.
So in that case we are both the writers and the actors. This isn’t restricted to Dune, this is all games we play.

In some ways I struggle to see how you could fully eliminate either of these views, quite possibly another of my blind spots. As has been pointed out I have several.
If you only view the world from the viewpoint of your Character then you wouldn’t be able to utilise the rules, dice and most of the other aspects of playing a game (possibly Glorantha and Amber aside) that a player handles.
On the other hand if you only view it from the position of the Player, then it is more like a board game and you are losing one of the key words in the hobby, Roleplay.
The main difference in Dune is that it has a mechanic that grants the Player some of the power to determine the scene that is normally restricted to the GM.

The examples are a bit confusing in that they talk about the character (Kara) asking to invoke traits and make rolls when really it is the player (Claire) who is doing these things.
If you look at the character creation examples it does better by describing Claire as the one making those mechanical choices.

To summarise my ramblings I think you as a Player make mechanical decisions, but your Character makes roleplay decisions.
I find it natural to shift between these states so I never really gave it a proper thought before. Dune just leans in the same direction as I do which is one of the reasons I have been so enamoured with it.

((I also know nothing about how to design or write a game system so I am of absolutely no use here :laughing:))

3 Likes

Does it need to be said?

It is a RPG, which also means and encourages you as Players and Game Masters to create custom rules that work for you. I happen to like the abstract nature as it gives wide breadth for creativity by PCs and GM. The rules provided are very different than I am used to playing but my group adapted really well to them and made rules where we wanted them. If you don’t like it, change it, right? That’s part of the core ethos in RPGs.

Thanks so much for the response. And having thought about it I agree with you 100% on all your points. My main motivation in throwing my comments out there is to make sure that I’m playing the game as intended. I felt that the phrasing of the examples that show practical application of the mechanics contradicted what the intended play experience was so I was confused.

I’m not used to gameplay systems that allow the players to take the mechanical tools to craft the narrative to such an extent that they strongly break immersion in such an intentional way.

Now as you said all systems break immersion but I was trying to find ways to minimize it but also trying to get clarification about 2D20 to find out if I should even try. If the system is designed to say have a player straight out say - "I create a trait called “security access key” that my character will find in the guards pocket. Here is my 2 points of momentum. " Then so be it. If that’s how it’s supposed to be played then great.

My preference would be that it goes down like this:

GM- you see the gun turret go online and start targeting Nair’s Ornothopter. What do you do.

Kara’s player- I need to stop this. I run to the security office to see how I can.

GM- you burst in and see a guard.

Kara’s player- I take him down.

GM(after the tests) -He’s on the floor lying unconscious. What do you do. The gun almost has him in sight.

Kara- Ok…there has to be a way. Maybe the security terminal?

GM- maybe. you do see a console that looks like it could control the turret

Kara- Ok! Maybe a card. I look around.

GM - You don’t see anything.

Kara- Maybe the guard has it on him!

GM- He might. Do you want to spend momentum to get one?

Kara- yes! there is no time!

GM- great! You found a card and you manage to turn the turret off just before it gets a shot off and Nasir is safe.

Ha. Sorry. Didn’t mean to get to deep. But I think that’s my balance. Now I could be wrong and the game intends for the first example to be how it’s played but I like to minimize loss of immersion.

The phrasing of the rules don’t make that very clear. But I will learn and find the proper balance.

2 Likes

yes I saw that. I picked up Star Trek Adventures and cross compared phrasing in the conflict chapters of both books and the phrasing in STA was also unfortunate. Like I said, the system in my opinion is brilliant but how it’s communicated is just as important.

1 Like

There is no need to apologize. I have great admiration for the game and great respect for all the creators that have worked tirelessly to bring it about. I don’t mean my feedback to be attacking and hope none of it comes off that way. I’m going to learn the game and have a lot of fun.

For conflicts - Dueling was the most confusing. I do see the intent but I just can’t wrap my head around how to actually play it. I think it would be helpful to have the play blog.

Skirmish- totally got it.

Espionage- got it

Intrigue- I love it! I think some digital tools on Roll 20 would be awesome! You can make an entire evolving campaign around just one intrigue conflict between different houses. It reminds me of how one might manage the meta game in say Blades in the Dark, Scum and Villany and Band of Blades. Does Roll 20 have digital versions of conflict maps to manage?

Warefare- totally made sense.

A blog about the use of traits in practical play would also be appreciated

Like I said, I just felt like as far as how to construct scenes and go through them using the mechanics to alter them …I love the mechanics but the phasing was confusing in how to apply them.

2 Likes

They’re good enough that I intend to buy Dune as soon as the money’s available (have to prioritize back-to-school shopping for the kids)–even though the odds I’ll ever get to play it are very slim. :shushing_face:

1 Like

While it is always helpful to know how it was designed to run,
I’d add that if you are enjoying it and its working for your group, you are playing it as intended. :slight_smile:

3 Likes

I’m late to this conversation but I too would like duelling clarified. If I work through a situation (Paul and Gurney at practice, early in the book) can anyone put me right on what I’m missing?

Both combatants have a “Knife” asset and a “Shield” asset to begin with.

Several inconsequential tests happen, exchanges of blows that don’t lead to anything.

Paul creates an asset “Table” and moves it in to Gurneys personal zone with the intent of creating an “off balance” trait for Gurney which Paul then exploits for a victory.

I feel like I have a half an understanding of how this should work mechanically, can anyone fill in the gaps?

3 Likes

My sense is that you’re spot on here with your example.

I don’t necessarily think “create trait called X” is wrong, just that it would likely require some back and forth with the referee before it would be accepted.

IIRC, many of the examples in the CRB have the phrase, “after a round of roleplaying” that accompany them. That seems the likely place for the table to set the scene, get a handle on the situation, discuss appropriate Traits and Assets, and set-up for another round of action.

Certainly, from what you posted, you are well within your rights as referee or player to stay in the fiction and be bounded by its constraints.

1 Like

Yup, I’d say you have it there.

The way you wrote is basically how I intent to my campaign tbh, specially because it`s the closest way to a traditional RPG system that myself and my players are used to GM and play. The part of being able to create tha asset needed for an action is interesting, but the gameplay around it is the most interesting and funny part of a game

Hi, we start a campaign and we also have difficulties to understand all the conflict rules, especially abstract/Architect ones : Intrigue, Espionnage.

Can you publish some complete exemples of all sorts of conflicts, with visual maps (explaining every step) please ? It will be very helpful :slight_smile:

I ran the “Wormsign” adventure for some friends, some of whom had no familiarity with 2d20 system, and none of us have played the Dune version. I will say, once the players got the hang of the idea of creating assets based on the situation (and based on a 2d20 challenge roll), they really engaged with it, and did not overuse it. One player saw that his asset was a smuggler contact. When the PCs dropped into the smuggler encampment, he asked “Can this smuggler be my contact?” A successful roll gave a yes, and this player then engaged in role-play with this NPC. Later, another character recalled he grabbed a pair of binoculars from an NPC. He asked, “Do I still have them?” another successful challenge roll, and he created that asset. Both instances made narrative sense, and increased player buy-in.

I really love the wide ranging nature of the ruleset. I can understand how some may see it as vague, but for my style of GMing, it allows a wide latitude of actions and decisions for myself and my players.

3 Likes

Yes, and in fact allows a good deal of flexibility to suit what players like imo.

Hi @Andy-Modiphius,

I am trying to understand Extended Tasks in the framework of duels.

Extended tasks makes a comment at the end about reversing the point of view, but I believe this is talking about doing a task and it getting harder the more you fail. I don’t know how to apply that to duels.

Anyways, are duels two extended tasks? One for Actor 1 and another for Actor 2?

So Actor 1 would do an Extended Task against Actor 2, with the requirement Actor 2’s Battle rank. Then Actor 2 would do an Extended Task against Actor 1, with the requirement Actor 1’s Battle rank? This is the only thing that could make sense to me with movement rules involved. Why wouldn’t everyone just keep their weapons in the Personal Zone otherwise to raise the difficulty of the original action?

If you could give me some idea on how this works I’d appreciate it.

Thanks,

Tet

Yup, its only an extended task in a contested roll, which only comes up when making an actual attack.
Moving assets is against a base Difficulty so aren’t contests nor do they require an extended test.

If the NPC isn’t important enough it need not be an extended test either, but if you are fighting a duel we can assume both opponents are important enough to warrant extended tests.

You can only make an attack action in a duel when you get an asset into the personal (circle) zone of your opponent, so it is unlikely both will be doing it alternately.

The extended test runs until it finishes. So, if I get an asset into my opponent’s zone, on my next action I can make an attack (if its still there). The attack is an extended test against their battle (as you say).
Lets say this means I need a requirement of 5 in this case.
If I make my test I might get 3 points towards the requirement (2 points for a successful test and a bonus for a quality 1 weapon for instance).
While this hasn’t defeated my opponent I am 3 points towards the requirement. If I can attack again at any point I now only need 2 more points to complete the test and defeat them.

What I would like to see more examples of are Espionage and Warfare conflicts where there are more than one PC and/or NPCs on each side as commanders/spymasters.

Also, if it is possible for “mixed” conflicts, where some PC’s are acting as Agents and others are acting as Architects at the same time, I think it would be helpful to see some examples of those.