Looking for Draw Steel extended play review

[Blue]

We've had some great reviews of systems here when a campaign came to a close and there was that full-campaign view, able to talke about it from character creation through advancement all the way to a conclusion. I know Draw Steel hasn't been out for particularly long, but anyone running a campaign and want to tell us about it? Many of the 3rd party reviews I've seen so far are from just reading the rules or doing some one shots, I'm looking for people who are continuously playing it.

 

[CommodoreKong]

I’ve been running the Delian Tomb for my group. We’ve gone through a number of sessions- they’ve gotten to level 2 and have completed most of the sandbox quests.
Both myself and my players are really enjoying system. We’re all super impressed with how polished the game feels and the game itself is a lot of fun. As a director monsters are a lot of fun, and I love using malice. My players have talked about how fun combat can be, especially with some of the solo monsters they’ve fought.

I can’t recommend the system enough. It’s really clicking with me in a way other RPGs haven’t.

I’ve already backed Crack the Sun and my players are interested in running that when it comes out. I know one of my players is very interested in trying the summoner as their next character.

 

[zakael19]

I've been running for about 8 sessions now, starting with Delian Tomb and then after a couple of sessions of that deciding it was interesting enough to us to try something full-campaign level.

Cons up front:

• It's a pretty complex system, which I think you kinda know getting into it right? Figuring out how to check for all the possible reactions can make for some back peddling or "oh crap, wait" moments on a regular, but does lead to cool "whoa, all that piled on together" stuff. It also does certain things just a little bit different then say 4e in terms of wording or the like that if you're familiar with other tactical-focused RPGs that have come out in 4e's descent you'll need to double check assumptions and learn a new lexicon.
• The character design and inherent world-building is pretty opinionated.
• "Standard" to "Hard" fights do take a while for my group. A good part of that is probably that first bullet, but I've also never personally had the group of system-mastery players that a game like this probably absolutely sings with.
• The negotiation system is very cool, but has some iffy choices as presented that can be a bit of a trap IMO (lots of Reddit posts about this).
• Coming from a mild 4e + heavy PBTA background, I find the way they've structured the Skill Checks and outcomes a bit unnatural.

Pros:

• The combat system really does deliver what it promises. The more your players can take the already cool baseline in the abilities and their flavor via names + short description and build on that with the set and player-facing Tier outcomes the more cinematic your combat will be.
• The characters you get from the opinionated system are chock full of "wait, what? really? that's awesome!" stuff. Especially when the party is pushing deep on a high Victory count, crazy stuff happens in combat.
• When you reserve the negotiation system for NPCs that have no reason to be kindly disposed (or neutral at best), and leverage its mechanics, you get a really nice framework for everybody to get involved in the social situation.
• You can use montages and/or extended skill challenges to reward Victories in service of progression towards play goals without always doing back-to-back Encounters.

Edit: and all that to say I'm not sure I have it in me to continue for the long haul, and I think that's mainly not finding the complex tactical combat worth the squeeze for me.

 

[Blue]

• The character design and inherent world-building is pretty opinionated.
• The characters you get from the opinionated system are chock full of "wait, what? really? that's awesome!" stuff. Especially when the party is pushing deep on a high Victory count, crazy stuff happens in combat.

I've seen "opinionated" used elsewhere for Draw Steel as well, but no real explanation of what it means in this context. Could you elaborate?

 

[zakael19]

I've seen "opinionated" used elsewhere for Draw Steel as well, but no real explanation of what it means in this context. Could you elaborate?

So like, I dont know if you've looked at Daggerheart at all or I guess we can just take 5e core. The classes in both are, for lack of a better term, "generic D&D/heroic fantasy" right? Like, there's cultural knowledge about what these classes do and mostly we can just map our expectations there.

DS!'s classes and ancestries express a lot of the inherent setting (especially the latter), and have a unique vibe to them. You're not a Cleric, you're a Conduit of the Divine and while there's some overlap (especially with the 4e cleric), it's also different enough in execution that it feels fresh.

Idk if that makes any sense, but basically: combo of inherent setting bleeding through + a deliberately unique spin on classic tropes?

 

[Blue]

So like, I dont know if you've looked at Daggerheart at all or I guess we can just take 5e core. The classes in both are, for lack of a better term, "generic D&D/heroic fantasy" right? Like, there's cultural knowledge about what these classes do and mostly we can just map our expectations there.

DS!'s classes and ancestries express a lot of the inherent setting (especially the latter), and have a unique vibe to them. You're not a Cleric, you're a Conduit of the Divine and while there's some overlap (especially with the 4e cleric), it's also different enough in execution that it feels fresh.

Idk if that makes any sense, but basically: combo of inherent setting bleeding through + a deliberately unique spin on classic tropes?

Gotcha. Thanks, that's reassuring. It sounds like you're saying they are strongly grounded in their setting & lore. I've played plenty of bespoke games, like Blades in the Dark, that craft the character choices for the setting.

"Opinionated", which I've seen from not just you but others, was worrisome. To pull a dictionary definition: "assertively dogmatic in expressing opinions."

Tailored to the setting and a unique, non-D&D feel? That's all good.

 

[zakael19]

Gotcha. Thanks, that's reassuring. It sounds like you're saying they are strongly grounded in their setting & lore. I've played plenty of bespoke games, like Blades in the Dark, that craft the character choices for the setting.

"Opinionated", which I've seen from not just you but others, was worrisome. To pull a dictionary definition: "assertively dogmatic in expressing opinions."

Tailored to the setting and a unique, non-D&D feel? That's all good.

Yeah, what I'll further say there is that many games like this are built kinda generic / open to the GM to use whatever they or their group really wants to land on (home-brew setting, some published work, etc). As presented, especially with the Ancestries and such, the Timescape stuff is very present and you have to work to use something else. As presented, Orden is a pretty small sketch (eg: it's not a full setting as you'd expect from a setting specific supplement or even as much as Blades does with Doskvol) but bleeds through every bit of the game from an authorial voice perspective.

I yanked the core of the game out and ported it over to FR, but that took some active work to be deliberate.

 

[Blue]

So the core group that I play with are all great roleplayers, but generally have a wide range of system mastery. Looking at some of the points above, will that be a problem? Not just it terms of character building, but also what actions and such to use during play.

For instance, when we played PF2r there was a fairly wide power gap between characters, and support characters played by some of the players who could contribute more supporting others would go for direct damage instead.

 

[djotaku]

I've been running for about 8 sessions now, starting with Delian Tomb and then after a couple of sessions of that deciding it was interesting enough to us to try something full-campaign level.

Cons up front:

• It's a pretty complex system, which I think you kinda know getting into it right? Figuring out how to check for all the possible reactions can make for some back peddling or "oh crap, wait" moments on a regular, but does lead to cool "whoa, all that piled on together" stuff. It also does certain things just a little bit different then say 4e in terms of wording or the like that if you're familiar with other tactical-focused RPGs that have come out in 4e's descent you'll need to double check assumptions and learn a new lexicon.
• The character design and inherent world-building is pretty opinionated.
• "Standard" to "Hard" fights do take a while for my group. A good part of that is probably that first bullet, but I've also never personally had the group of system-mastery players that a game like this probably absolutely sings with.
• The negotiation system is very cool, but has some iffy choices as presented that can be a bit of a trap IMO (lots of Reddit posts about this).
• Coming from a mild 4e + heavy PBTA background, I find the way they've structured the Skill Checks and outcomes a bit unnatural.

Pros:

• The combat system really does deliver what it promises. The more your players can take the already cool baseline in the abilities and their flavor via names + short description and build on that with the set and player-facing Tier outcomes the more cinematic your combat will be.
• The characters you get from the opinionated system are chock full of "wait, what? really? that's awesome!" stuff. Especially when the party is pushing deep on a high Victory count, crazy stuff happens in combat.
• When you reserve the negotiation system for NPCs that have no reason to be kindly disposed (or neutral at best), and leverage its mechanics, you get a really nice framework for everybody to get involved in the social situation.
• You can use montages and/or extended skill challenges to reward Victories in service of progression towards play goals without always doing back-to-back Encounters.

Edit: and all that to say I'm not sure I have it in me to continue for the long haul, and I think that's mainly not finding the complex tactical combat worth the squeeze for me.

to me this reads all the more balanced for the fact that at the end you might not continue. It really seemed from the pros/cons that you were more in favor. Thanks for bringing that balance and honesty.

 

[zakael19]

So the core group that I play with are all great roleplayers, but generally have a wide range of system mastery. Looking at some of the points above, will that be a problem? Not just it terms of character building, but also what actions and such to use during play.

For instance, when we played PF2r there was a fairly wide power gap between characters, and support characters played by some of the players who could contribute more supporting others would go for direct damage instead.

I think that like most games which have a higher degree of mechanical complexity, it sings with system mastery. It does however (I think) move a lot of the choices away from builds and into moment-to-moment tactics?

Also, if you're a support-focused character the game will pretty much tell you via the subclass mechanics and ability choices. Some of the subclasses are far more clearly geared towards certain methods of play (control/ single target damage / area damage / boosting). However, there's multiple abilities across classes that attack and then boost an ally as well - including Recoveries.

I'm not sure if that answers your question directly? Honestly a problem my group has is that we don't have a "defender."

to me this reads all the more balanced for the fact that at the end you might not continue. It really seemed from the pros/cons that you were more in favor. Thanks for bringing that balance and honesty.

Also this is just my experience & etc. A guy just posted to reddit that he's done 50 sessions in teh game from playtest forward and his group is level 4 because they've been using it more as a vibe-based "talk to NPCs" and role-play game then a focus on its Victory granting frameworks and tactical combat.