What do you think?
Rate this book
Hillfolk
In the shadow of empires, an epic saga of ambition and desire!
In an arid badlands, the hill people hunger. Your neighbors have grain, cattle, gold. You have horses and spears, courage and ambition. Together with those you love and hate, you will remake history—or die.
With the Hillfolk roleplaying game, you and your group weave an epic, ongoing saga of high-stakes interpersonal conflict that grows richer with every session. Its DramaSystem rules engine, from acclaimed designer Robin D. Laws, takes the basic structure of interpersonal conflict underlying fiction, movies and television and brings it to the world of roleplaying. This simple framework brings your creativity to the fore and keep a surprising, emotionally compelling narrative constantly on the move.
As you build your story, you mold and shape the Hillfolk setting to fit its needs. Do you entangle yourself with the seductions of your wealthy cousins to the north? Do you do battle with the fearsome sea people to the west? Or do you conquer the scattered badlands tribes to forge a new empire of your own?
Detailed play style notes show you how to make the most of DramaSystem’s new tools. Once you’ve mastered DramaSystem’s nuances, you’ll hunger to take them to new vistas. A stunning talent roster brings you 30 additional series settings. From Cthulhu cult family drama to ninjas, pirates, and steampunk cowboys, Hillfolk offers years of play value.
Contributors from every corner of the gaming scene and beyond include Ed Greenwood, Gene Ha & Art Lyon, Jason Morningstar, Kenneth Hite, Rob Heinsoo, Meg Baker, Wolfgang Baur, Jesse Bullington, John Scott Tynes, and Keith Baker.
In an arid badlands, the hill people hunger. Your neighbors have grain, cattle, gold. You have horses and spears, courage and ambition. Together with those you love and hate, you will remake history—or die.
With the Hillfolk roleplaying game, you and your group weave an epic, ongoing saga of high-stakes interpersonal conflict that grows richer with every session. Its DramaSystem rules engine, from acclaimed designer Robin D. Laws, takes the basic structure of interpersonal conflict underlying fiction, movies and television and brings it to the world of roleplaying. This simple framework brings your creativity to the fore and keep a surprising, emotionally compelling narrative constantly on the move.
As you build your story, you mold and shape the Hillfolk setting to fit its needs. Do you entangle yourself with the seductions of your wealthy cousins to the north? Do you do battle with the fearsome sea people to the west? Or do you conquer the scattered badlands tribes to forge a new empire of your own?
Detailed play style notes show you how to make the most of DramaSystem’s new tools. Once you’ve mastered DramaSystem’s nuances, you’ll hunger to take them to new vistas. A stunning talent roster brings you 30 additional series settings. From Cthulhu cult family drama to ninjas, pirates, and steampunk cowboys, Hillfolk offers years of play value.
Contributors from every corner of the gaming scene and beyond include Ed Greenwood, Gene Ha & Art Lyon, Jason Morningstar, Kenneth Hite, Rob Heinsoo, Meg Baker, Wolfgang Baur, Jesse Bullington, John Scott Tynes, and Keith Baker.
238 pages, ebook
First published January 1, 2013
4 people are currently reading
48 people want to read
About the author
Robin D. Laws
146 books195 followersWriter and game designer Robin D. Laws brought you such roleplaying games as Ashen Stars, The Esoterrorists, The Dying Earth, Heroquest and Feng Shui. He is the author of seven novels, most recently The Worldwound Gambit from Paizo. For Robin's much-praised works of gaming history and analysis, see Hamlet's Hit Points, Robin's Laws of Game Mastering and 40 Years of Gen Con.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
April 20, 2015
[Something of a caveat. This is a review specifically for the core Hillfolk book. I also have the Blood on the Snow companion, which I consider almost essential to fully grasp the DramaSystem, but I'll save a review for its additives until later.]
It's kind of a new experience for me to review (and read) role-playing games as books (as opposed to fun rules and flavor text that can be thumbed through in something like Random-Access Memory mode). I have tried to do so moreso this year than any previous, and Hillfolk is the first I feel like reviewing in that light (the other two entries on the shelf are a) a book about role-playing games of a specific ilk and b) a book about live-action role-play that is as much a book-of-tips as a set of rules.
When reviewing RPG (as I'll call them from here on out) rulebooks, I like to keep three (possibly four) things in mind, the factors that I think go into making a good game [though different games can stress them in different ways]. First factor, the layout and design. Having been role-player since the early 80s, I have seen a lot of various takes on design, and I have seen really good design and really bad design. As well, I have seen bad design that works for the product (the really playable Beyond the Supernatural suffers from the same design glitches as the rest of the Palladium line) and good design that detracts (Wraith: The Oblivion comes to mind).
Second factor: readability. These are ostensibly technical documents explaining the rules, ideas, flavor, and so forth for a game world and game mechanic. The ability to read and understand the rules and world is essential to having a harmonious play session (when people are in doubt, they can get fussy).
Third Factor: playability. This is a product meant to exist as a working-document driving play sessions. While it is sort of odd to judge such a book on its real-world qualities, it fits into roughly the same category as a book of recipes or a book about budgeting, if the content is not-useful, then the book is no good.
Option/Fourth Factor: flavor. This is optional because I play a lot of universal games, or games-lite style games, where the flavor is entirely in a giving setting, or in a given play-through, and not really inherent in the game itself (see: GURPS, FUDGE, even Fiasco, which does manage to have built in flavor but one that can change drastically based on a few starting assumptions getting tweaked).
With that pre-amble out of the way (and "Hi!", assuming you saw me link to this one from another review about an RPG), let's take a look at Hillfolk. Disclosure, I was a Kickstarter backer. There is some debate about how much that influences a person's decision. In my case, I'd say maybe not, but I don't know. I've had a few bad Kickstarter games and a few good Kickstarter games. I've had miserable experiences and fun ones. The Hillfolk Kickstarter was both a fun experience (and well run) and the game is worth owning. I'd like to say I'd say otherwise if it wasn't the case, but decide how you will.
Now, taking in the three+one factors, let's dive into Hillfolk. When I first got into the game, the unique setting intrigued me: iron-age tribesmen in a magic-free, politically-driven world. It was unique, had a lot of chances for both conflict and for growth, and could foster any sort of story. Over time, and reading the world-building in this book, it sort of lost some charm. Nothing that Robin D. Laws did, I think just the idea of a primitive society getting into romantic scrapes, and fights with nearby tribes, and going on hunting parties and raids just lost some charm. The good news is, and we'll get to this, the system is really not tied entirely into its story-world premise. It can be expanded to do just about any setting you want, assuming that setting is largely driven through interpersonal interaction, which is really the core mechanic of the game.
Game-play works, basically, like this. You take turns as "scene callers", setting up scenes, generally between several characters. There is a sort of focus to the scene, a setting to the scene, and a sense that the scene as "positive and negative" outcomes. Hillfolk awards a drama token to the character who "lost" the scene [losing can range from not getting what you want to giving up something]. These tokens can be accumulated and then "spent" to change the interaction of some scenes. There are also storyline elements that change based on the flow of scenes, of course. Much like in a lot of the "New RPG" games, the stuff that happens in the scenes—settings and characters introduced, events introduced, conflicts—is canon for the world, making world-building an organic experience. There is a game-master type who feeds in input and helps to manage scenes, but generally the GM strives to stay a bit hands-off except a) where absolutely necessary or b) when the GM has built up tokens to spend.
There is another type of scene, the "procedural scene", which is played differently. Players have a task to do, the GM sets the difficulty, and then a card or two is drawn. It tends to be the weakest part of the game. The random chance is simply too flat and lifeless to compare to the dramatic scenes, and separating drama tokens from procedural tokens seems to be a mistake. There is a suggested fix in the companion volume, that helps, but if there is ever a Hillfolk/DramaSystem 2.0, this is what needs to be tweaked.
It is laid-out well, and is quite readable. I have some players that never quite like reading too deeply into text, and most of them were able to read and comprehend, even if it looks and feels daunting at first. If on first pass, the book doesn't make sense to you, try again. It has some of its own particular idioms, but it is quite readable as a book, as well.
Overall, the game is fun. It is also kind of not-a-"game" in that you could easily imagine throwing away the notion of tokens and any random elements and just going for a more collaborative drama experience (with or without a GM). Part of this is driven by the drama tokens being weakened through the simple fact that most games don't have time to accumulate too many (they go away at the end of a session), meaning that you might get 3-4 most in an entire night, unless your character is a focus. Perhaps allowing players to start with 2 drama tokens would be a nice house-rule. Another would be making the skills more important to scenes (again, the companion does this latter one better).
As said, the core setting did not call to me when it became time to play, but there are a lot of suggested settings (called Series Pitches). The main book has dozens. What's more, once you played a few games, it really isn't hard to imagine just starting from scratch: "We are members of a gang, and a new drug has hit the street...go!". It helps to add a lot of value, which is important I think since so much of the system is rules-light concept and the world, though there is a bit of world-building, is not gone into with much depth. Even with the base setting, the series pitches give ideas of how else to run it and what sort of drama might be possible.
If any of this sounds like a strong complaint, it is not. I am quite delighted with this as a product (though I find the companion necessary to complete it). Having played a few games set in a war-torn, alternate Russia (zombies + magic!), the players enjoy themselves and are taking part in building a world that is unique to this particular play-through. Drama tokens have done little except decide who gets bennies [which are a powerful, third type of token that you build up over games]. Procedural scenes got tweaked. But the core mechanic of petition-and-grant is something to which they have taken.
In the end, like any game, fudging the rules tends to work best (scene doesn't have a clear petition but pushes the story forward? Give the player a drama token (or take one) depending on if it's negative or positive). It's a fun new eye-opening way to handle things, that will probably be digested a bit and blended into other games of a more traditional type, as I like to do.
It's kind of a new experience for me to review (and read) role-playing games as books (as opposed to fun rules and flavor text that can be thumbed through in something like Random-Access Memory mode). I have tried to do so moreso this year than any previous, and Hillfolk is the first I feel like reviewing in that light (the other two entries on the shelf are a) a book about role-playing games of a specific ilk and b) a book about live-action role-play that is as much a book-of-tips as a set of rules.
When reviewing RPG (as I'll call them from here on out) rulebooks, I like to keep three (possibly four) things in mind, the factors that I think go into making a good game [though different games can stress them in different ways]. First factor, the layout and design. Having been role-player since the early 80s, I have seen a lot of various takes on design, and I have seen really good design and really bad design. As well, I have seen bad design that works for the product (the really playable Beyond the Supernatural suffers from the same design glitches as the rest of the Palladium line) and good design that detracts (Wraith: The Oblivion comes to mind).
Second factor: readability. These are ostensibly technical documents explaining the rules, ideas, flavor, and so forth for a game world and game mechanic. The ability to read and understand the rules and world is essential to having a harmonious play session (when people are in doubt, they can get fussy).
Third Factor: playability. This is a product meant to exist as a working-document driving play sessions. While it is sort of odd to judge such a book on its real-world qualities, it fits into roughly the same category as a book of recipes or a book about budgeting, if the content is not-useful, then the book is no good.
Option/Fourth Factor: flavor. This is optional because I play a lot of universal games, or games-lite style games, where the flavor is entirely in a giving setting, or in a given play-through, and not really inherent in the game itself (see: GURPS, FUDGE, even Fiasco, which does manage to have built in flavor but one that can change drastically based on a few starting assumptions getting tweaked).
With that pre-amble out of the way (and "Hi!", assuming you saw me link to this one from another review about an RPG), let's take a look at Hillfolk. Disclosure, I was a Kickstarter backer. There is some debate about how much that influences a person's decision. In my case, I'd say maybe not, but I don't know. I've had a few bad Kickstarter games and a few good Kickstarter games. I've had miserable experiences and fun ones. The Hillfolk Kickstarter was both a fun experience (and well run) and the game is worth owning. I'd like to say I'd say otherwise if it wasn't the case, but decide how you will.
Now, taking in the three+one factors, let's dive into Hillfolk. When I first got into the game, the unique setting intrigued me: iron-age tribesmen in a magic-free, politically-driven world. It was unique, had a lot of chances for both conflict and for growth, and could foster any sort of story. Over time, and reading the world-building in this book, it sort of lost some charm. Nothing that Robin D. Laws did, I think just the idea of a primitive society getting into romantic scrapes, and fights with nearby tribes, and going on hunting parties and raids just lost some charm. The good news is, and we'll get to this, the system is really not tied entirely into its story-world premise. It can be expanded to do just about any setting you want, assuming that setting is largely driven through interpersonal interaction, which is really the core mechanic of the game.
Game-play works, basically, like this. You take turns as "scene callers", setting up scenes, generally between several characters. There is a sort of focus to the scene, a setting to the scene, and a sense that the scene as "positive and negative" outcomes. Hillfolk awards a drama token to the character who "lost" the scene [losing can range from not getting what you want to giving up something]. These tokens can be accumulated and then "spent" to change the interaction of some scenes. There are also storyline elements that change based on the flow of scenes, of course. Much like in a lot of the "New RPG" games, the stuff that happens in the scenes—settings and characters introduced, events introduced, conflicts—is canon for the world, making world-building an organic experience. There is a game-master type who feeds in input and helps to manage scenes, but generally the GM strives to stay a bit hands-off except a) where absolutely necessary or b) when the GM has built up tokens to spend.
There is another type of scene, the "procedural scene", which is played differently. Players have a task to do, the GM sets the difficulty, and then a card or two is drawn. It tends to be the weakest part of the game. The random chance is simply too flat and lifeless to compare to the dramatic scenes, and separating drama tokens from procedural tokens seems to be a mistake. There is a suggested fix in the companion volume, that helps, but if there is ever a Hillfolk/DramaSystem 2.0, this is what needs to be tweaked.
It is laid-out well, and is quite readable. I have some players that never quite like reading too deeply into text, and most of them were able to read and comprehend, even if it looks and feels daunting at first. If on first pass, the book doesn't make sense to you, try again. It has some of its own particular idioms, but it is quite readable as a book, as well.
Overall, the game is fun. It is also kind of not-a-"game" in that you could easily imagine throwing away the notion of tokens and any random elements and just going for a more collaborative drama experience (with or without a GM). Part of this is driven by the drama tokens being weakened through the simple fact that most games don't have time to accumulate too many (they go away at the end of a session), meaning that you might get 3-4 most in an entire night, unless your character is a focus. Perhaps allowing players to start with 2 drama tokens would be a nice house-rule. Another would be making the skills more important to scenes (again, the companion does this latter one better).
As said, the core setting did not call to me when it became time to play, but there are a lot of suggested settings (called Series Pitches). The main book has dozens. What's more, once you played a few games, it really isn't hard to imagine just starting from scratch: "We are members of a gang, and a new drug has hit the street...go!". It helps to add a lot of value, which is important I think since so much of the system is rules-light concept and the world, though there is a bit of world-building, is not gone into with much depth. Even with the base setting, the series pitches give ideas of how else to run it and what sort of drama might be possible.
If any of this sounds like a strong complaint, it is not. I am quite delighted with this as a product (though I find the companion necessary to complete it). Having played a few games set in a war-torn, alternate Russia (zombies + magic!), the players enjoy themselves and are taking part in building a world that is unique to this particular play-through. Drama tokens have done little except decide who gets bennies [which are a powerful, third type of token that you build up over games]. Procedural scenes got tweaked. But the core mechanic of petition-and-grant is something to which they have taken.
In the end, like any game, fudging the rules tends to work best (scene doesn't have a clear petition but pushes the story forward? Give the player a drama token (or take one) depending on if it's negative or positive). It's a fun new eye-opening way to handle things, that will probably be digested a bit and blended into other games of a more traditional type, as I like to do.
December 10, 2020
Looks like a fantastic game that emphasizes dialogue and interaction rather than dice rolling and levelling up. You could really have fun with character names too.
October 27, 2017
Robin Laws’s Hillfolk RPG is designed to create a particular kind of story by putting his analysis of literature that he proposed in Hamlet’s Hitpoints into practice. In Hamlet’s Hitpoints Laws observes that in any given film or book, there are two main types of scenes, which he calls dramatic and procedural. The dramatic scenes are primarily about characters and their emotional states while procedural scenes are primarily concerned with the progression of the plot.
RPGs of course were designed with procedural play in mind, all the mechanics being aimed at settling issues of whether the characters can overcome an external obstacle. Internal play was left up to the players to introduce or not introduce. Hillfolk is an attempt to create a game that puts dramatic play in the forefront.
To achieve that end, Laws uses HBO serial dramas as the model for the stories he wants Hillfolk to tell. These are stories about a set of important people within a clan during the Iron Age. While character creation does involve stats, it is primarily concerned with generating dramatic juice to fuel the scenes it wants to encourage. Thus, in creating your character you decide what role you have within the tribe, what your relationship is with all the other protagonists, what your main character pole is (meaning, what are the two aspects of your character that are at war with each other that will be finally laid to rest through game play), what specific emotional reward you are seeking from the other protagonists generally, and why they cannot give you that emotional reward easily. By the time you are done setting up, you know what buttons to push whenever you find yourself in a scene with any other character.
It’s a clever design, and it is very reminiscent of Primetime Adventures by Matt Wilson, another game to attempts to replicate the type of stories told with serial TV. Hillfolk is much more narrow in its scope, so some mechanics can be more finely tuned, but other than that they two games use a very similar approach. PtA has a cast list while Hillfolk has tribal roles. Hillfolk has character dramatic poles while PtA has character issues and impulses. Both games use a GM to moderate play and act as dramatic partners with the other players. Both games have an economy to encourage player interaction and characters’ presence in any given scene. There is a great study to be made about how character creation in a well-built game is designed to meet very specific goals to give the players exactly what they need during play, and these two games could easily be featured for comparison.
One of the things that Hillfolk does differently is that every scene is fueled by at least one character petitioning at least one other character for some emotional reward. (If that sounds weird, it won’t once you read the text.) At the end of the scene a token is rewarded to the person who lost the emotional struggle from the player whose character won the emotional struggle. That result is not always clear, so it sounds like play regularly involves something of a debrief after each scene to determine who got what from whom. That becomes part of the conversation when playing the game.
I have heard several complaints about the rules for settling procedural issues, and Laws himself doesn’t seem particularly invested in the system he devised, but it seems like a fine system to me. (I must pause to state that I have not played the game, only read and digested the text.) There is a mini-economy that forces the players and GM to include difficult encounters and sub-optimal decisions in any given set of procedural scenes, which seems simple and useful. According to the text, experienced players will usually end up handwaving procedural matters, everyone knowing what good or bad outcome feels right for the scene.
I really like the looks of the game. I particularly love the notion of having a set of dramatic poles for a character that lays out for you as a player what you are playing to find out about your character. Similarly, knowing the emotional dynamic between two characters is a step beyond the typical relationship map material, and I imagine it is empowering for the players to have that information. There are several other clever ideas as well, such as the notion that each session has its own theme, supplied by one of the players who then introduces the first scene. Playing to the theme is not required, but it is rewarded at the end of a session with a bennie.
The only weakness I see from the outside here is that the token system seems lackluster. Bennies and drama tokens don’t buy you a hell of a lot, so gaining or losing them seems relatively inconsequential. Unless you want to fight to be out of or in a scene, there’s not much you can do. I suppose forcing and blocking could be big, but if you are playing to say “yes and” then there’s not much to regret there. I don’t have a bang up idea about what the tokens could do, it just seems like they should do more. I know Laws has tested the hell out the game and plays it weekly himself, so I suspect there is something I am missing here.
I plan to read Malandros, which is a hack of Hillfolk that uses elements from Apocalypse World. It will be interesting to see how the two approaches mesh.
RPGs of course were designed with procedural play in mind, all the mechanics being aimed at settling issues of whether the characters can overcome an external obstacle. Internal play was left up to the players to introduce or not introduce. Hillfolk is an attempt to create a game that puts dramatic play in the forefront.
To achieve that end, Laws uses HBO serial dramas as the model for the stories he wants Hillfolk to tell. These are stories about a set of important people within a clan during the Iron Age. While character creation does involve stats, it is primarily concerned with generating dramatic juice to fuel the scenes it wants to encourage. Thus, in creating your character you decide what role you have within the tribe, what your relationship is with all the other protagonists, what your main character pole is (meaning, what are the two aspects of your character that are at war with each other that will be finally laid to rest through game play), what specific emotional reward you are seeking from the other protagonists generally, and why they cannot give you that emotional reward easily. By the time you are done setting up, you know what buttons to push whenever you find yourself in a scene with any other character.
It’s a clever design, and it is very reminiscent of Primetime Adventures by Matt Wilson, another game to attempts to replicate the type of stories told with serial TV. Hillfolk is much more narrow in its scope, so some mechanics can be more finely tuned, but other than that they two games use a very similar approach. PtA has a cast list while Hillfolk has tribal roles. Hillfolk has character dramatic poles while PtA has character issues and impulses. Both games use a GM to moderate play and act as dramatic partners with the other players. Both games have an economy to encourage player interaction and characters’ presence in any given scene. There is a great study to be made about how character creation in a well-built game is designed to meet very specific goals to give the players exactly what they need during play, and these two games could easily be featured for comparison.
One of the things that Hillfolk does differently is that every scene is fueled by at least one character petitioning at least one other character for some emotional reward. (If that sounds weird, it won’t once you read the text.) At the end of the scene a token is rewarded to the person who lost the emotional struggle from the player whose character won the emotional struggle. That result is not always clear, so it sounds like play regularly involves something of a debrief after each scene to determine who got what from whom. That becomes part of the conversation when playing the game.
I have heard several complaints about the rules for settling procedural issues, and Laws himself doesn’t seem particularly invested in the system he devised, but it seems like a fine system to me. (I must pause to state that I have not played the game, only read and digested the text.) There is a mini-economy that forces the players and GM to include difficult encounters and sub-optimal decisions in any given set of procedural scenes, which seems simple and useful. According to the text, experienced players will usually end up handwaving procedural matters, everyone knowing what good or bad outcome feels right for the scene.
I really like the looks of the game. I particularly love the notion of having a set of dramatic poles for a character that lays out for you as a player what you are playing to find out about your character. Similarly, knowing the emotional dynamic between two characters is a step beyond the typical relationship map material, and I imagine it is empowering for the players to have that information. There are several other clever ideas as well, such as the notion that each session has its own theme, supplied by one of the players who then introduces the first scene. Playing to the theme is not required, but it is rewarded at the end of a session with a bennie.
The only weakness I see from the outside here is that the token system seems lackluster. Bennies and drama tokens don’t buy you a hell of a lot, so gaining or losing them seems relatively inconsequential. Unless you want to fight to be out of or in a scene, there’s not much you can do. I suppose forcing and blocking could be big, but if you are playing to say “yes and” then there’s not much to regret there. I don’t have a bang up idea about what the tokens could do, it just seems like they should do more. I know Laws has tested the hell out the game and plays it weekly himself, so I suspect there is something I am missing here.
I plan to read Malandros, which is a hack of Hillfolk that uses elements from Apocalypse World. It will be interesting to see how the two approaches mesh.
January 1, 2022
This book was a slog to get through. For full disclosure, I am reviewing this RPG without having played it, merely having read the book itself. It was a real disappointment because I have had this system recommended to me a few times, and reading through it I failed to find something that I could latch on to.
If I recall correctly, the actual roleplaying system the game uses is derived from a dramatic exercise that has been refined into the game. Laws took the system and adapted it into a more RPG-like framework. The system, such as it is, gives very little to work with. On the spectrum of mechanics/dice-heavy systems and narrative focused systems it leans hard towards the latter. It really allows the individuals to roleplay as their chosen characters, and offers a network of relationships between them and their goals/drives.
For me, it all seemed far too structureless. I had a difficult time understanding how play would actually function.
The world created for Hillfolk was also a disappointment to me. It was neither a faithful representation of prehistoric human cultures, nor a unique creation. I wasn't sure what to make of the setting given that it swung between those two sides so strongly.
A large portion of the book, perhaps over a third, was dedicated to describing alternative settings. Given how loose the rules are, it can surely be used in different contexts easily. I found it odd though to pack a book full of these alternatives. It almost seemed like the creator didn't have faith that the setting created would be interesting enough for players.
Overall, I don't think Hillfolk has enough there. It's packed full of ideas, but leaves me uncertain how it could be actually implemented, or why implementing it would be fun or engaging.
If I recall correctly, the actual roleplaying system the game uses is derived from a dramatic exercise that has been refined into the game. Laws took the system and adapted it into a more RPG-like framework. The system, such as it is, gives very little to work with. On the spectrum of mechanics/dice-heavy systems and narrative focused systems it leans hard towards the latter. It really allows the individuals to roleplay as their chosen characters, and offers a network of relationships between them and their goals/drives.
For me, it all seemed far too structureless. I had a difficult time understanding how play would actually function.
The world created for Hillfolk was also a disappointment to me. It was neither a faithful representation of prehistoric human cultures, nor a unique creation. I wasn't sure what to make of the setting given that it swung between those two sides so strongly.
A large portion of the book, perhaps over a third, was dedicated to describing alternative settings. Given how loose the rules are, it can surely be used in different contexts easily. I found it odd though to pack a book full of these alternatives. It almost seemed like the creator didn't have faith that the setting created would be interesting enough for players.
Overall, I don't think Hillfolk has enough there. It's packed full of ideas, but leaves me uncertain how it could be actually implemented, or why implementing it would be fun or engaging.
February 15, 2021
The Hillfolk setting is solid, but the absolute goldmine in this book are the alternative setting ideas. Just check out Dreamspace!
Otherwise for me, Dramasystem is basically a boring version of Primetime Adventures...
Otherwise for me, Dramasystem is basically a boring version of Primetime Adventures...
October 27, 2013
Most roleplaying games focus on characters doing stuff: shooting things, solving problems, overcoming obstacles. DramaSystem is designed to focus on characters interacting with each other, presenting mechanics to encourage players to run their characters in ways that real people behave, rather than digging in and never compromising as so often happens in roleplaying games.
The mechanics look like they will do that, but I have yet to actually play the game. The rules are fairly simple, filling the first 65 pages, and 17 of those are full page illustrations. Another ten pages or so are spent on the default Hillfolk setting, set in a thinly disguised version of the Levant around the 10th Century BCE. The rest of the book is filled with 30 additional settings.
Looking forward to giving this game a try.
Full Disclosure: I haven't actually read all the additional settings, just the summary paragraph at the beginning of each one.
The mechanics look like they will do that, but I have yet to actually play the game. The rules are fairly simple, filling the first 65 pages, and 17 of those are full page illustrations. Another ten pages or so are spent on the default Hillfolk setting, set in a thinly disguised version of the Levant around the 10th Century BCE. The rest of the book is filled with 30 additional settings.
Looking forward to giving this game a try.
Full Disclosure: I haven't actually read all the additional settings, just the summary paragraph at the beginning of each one.
Read
July 27, 2016I read through the rules but not the extensive lists of series pitches.
Overall, this is an interesting game design that feels somewhat like a soap opera game and very much unlike most things on the market. It's also Laws' book that seems the most obviously influenced by the indie design movement, to the good.
Beyond that, it's a game that I can't imagine ever wanting to play. The decrease in the focus on "procedural" scenes removes much of what I see as the foundation of RPGs, while the constant drama/relationship scenes sound like hard work ... and I don't like hard work in my games.
People who like that sort of thing will probably love it, but it's clearly not for me.
Overall, this is an interesting game design that feels somewhat like a soap opera game and very much unlike most things on the market. It's also Laws' book that seems the most obviously influenced by the indie design movement, to the good.
Beyond that, it's a game that I can't imagine ever wanting to play. The decrease in the focus on "procedural" scenes removes much of what I see as the foundation of RPGs, while the constant drama/relationship scenes sound like hard work ... and I don't like hard work in my games.
People who like that sort of thing will probably love it, but it's clearly not for me.
October 3, 2015
This was a very interesting read - Robin has always been at the forefront of ideas for gaming and Hillfolk is no exception. It's some great ideas to facilitate a certain style of play and a neat stripped down setting to guide people into the intent of the setting rather than the chrome. I'd have rated it higher except for the unnecessarily baroque procedural action system. Whe he decides to invent some new wheel when there's a perfectly good wheel sitting right there is beyond me. Is he _trying_ to make the procedural rules unappealing to keep people from using them? It's a head scratcher.
February 27, 2021
A sweeping overhaul of traditional concepts in tabletop RPGs, this book presents one of the best systems for narrative-based play that I've ever read. Robin Laws has done an amazing job putting together a ruleset that makes interplayer conflict and dramatic personification realistic, playable, and enjoyable. I can't wait to play it.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews