Grade the Forged in the Dark System

[Ruin Explorer]

I think this critique belies a certain level of executive function that is like not universal.

That is fair.

I think if I hadn't DM'd for like 20+ years before I even got to DW, and had been taught from the beginning to adopt a scenario-type mindset (I didn't really understand the "railroad" mindset or how common it was until later), I might have felt more positively about fronts - when someone explained them to me properly, at least.

That's presumably why the designers themselves abandoned it too - not because it doesn't provide value, but because they'd internalized operating like that.

Some similar-but-different concepts in other RPGs have indeed been useful. So consider my criticism of Fronts, such that it was, retracted. I don't think they're strictly necessary, and I don't think the book does a remotely good job of explaining (and the examples border on actively unhelpful), but the concept can have value, and I did see it explained much, much better a couple of years ago in a document on how to run DW.

 

[kenada]

I honestly think the best solution to this is to encourage troupe play. Have players create multiple gang members. Have them only pick one to go on any given Score. This also encourages retirement and the Prison Claims game because characters can take the fall for Wanted levels and the player doesn’t miss out.

It’s a shame we stopped our Scum and Villainy game because that’s something I was starting to do. Otherwise, the crew is just very silly with three guys running the whole thing. (Unfortunately, neither of the other players were likely to ever retire their characters. They always opted to pay the cost when they overindulged.)

 

[niklinna]

, as I said, even not that long after release, the designers both said they didn't actually use them. One of them is in hiding these days since he got cancelled, but the other stated what he would do if he was making Dungeon World 2 (he isn't, though) and it was fairly hilarious, because it basically amounted to "strip literally every D&D-type connection or styling element or reward structure from the game and its mechanics" (and I'm pretty sure he mentioned not using Fronts there too).

Kinda want to read that!

 

[niklinna]

It’s a shame we stopped our Scum and Villainy game because that’s something I was starting to do. Otherwise, the crew is just very silly with three guys running the whole thing. (Unfortunately, neither of the other players were likely to ever retire their characters. They always opted to pay the cost when they overindulged.)

I would've loved to play a Hound alongside my Whisper in our game. I only didn't play a Hound to begin with because I'd just played one in a previous campaign and we had somebody playing one in ours (but then he dropped out). I love the Hound playbook to bits.

This also gives me an idea for how to resolve an issue I have in another game where I want to play three different characters (if I ever get to play again)....

 

[Old Fezziwig]

Kinda want to read that!

I'm not sure if LaTorra talks about it anywhere else, but here's what I found.

 

[mamba]

One of them is in hiding these days since he got cancelled, but the other stated what he would do if he was making Dungeon World 2 (he isn't, though) and it was fairly hilarious, because it basically amounted to "strip literally every D&D-type connection or styling element or reward structure from the game and its mechanics" (and I'm pretty sure he mentioned not using Fronts there too).

so basically make a straightforward PbtA game? There already are plenty of those....

 

[pemerton]

I cast my vote ("I've never played BitD/FitD") in order to join this discussion about Fronts.

I don't claim to have a good handle on Fronts in DW - I would need to re-read closely to fully get what is going on with Campaign and Adventure fronts.

In AW, though (and here I'm referring to the original version, which is what I own), the function of fronts seems fairly clear: the GM establishes some binding relationship between and among certain NPCs and places, and also binding goals and motivations for those NPCs. This then gets systematised with some clocks, stakes questions, custom moves, and GM moves.

So @Campbell, when you talk about "executive function" I think you're understating the point of AW fronts at least.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This isn't true at all. As you note, info gathering is a free play activity, but it’s not a downtime activity. Page 8 with the graphic shows this. Chapter 5 page 153 and 159 summarize downtime activities as Acquire Asset, Recover, Reduce Heat, Long-Term Project, Train, Vice. There are limits on downtime activities, there are not on free play activities.

Anything you do in free time is going to fall into one of these categories, LTP if nothing else. At no time in any play of BitD that I have done has there been some sort of an open-ended activity where I could just do whatever I want, free as a bird, without paying. There's no intention for such to exist! I mean, yes, I agree, and I said so, there is going to be some grey area potentially, but if you are allowing your players to run their crew and do any arbitrary stuff without any costs associated, YOU ARE NOT FOLLOWING THE RULES OF BITD!!!!

As for info gathering, you are GATHERING INFO, not executing a score. If the actions being taken do not constitute gathering information, then they are either A) somehow incidental, like when Takeo killed the Red Sashes in the park because they were assaulting someone. If a player is having their PC do something else, then it is one of the things that are listed in DT activities, not Free Play. You don't get to pretend you can skip the costs for DT activities simply by claiming you are doing Free Play instead. As the rules state clearly, these phases are not super hard and fast where the game is absolutely in DT or FP, if a player suddenly decides his character needs to acquire an asset and people are out gathering info, he's still got to treat that as a DT activity! This was VERY VERY CLEAR in all the play I did.

This part is true, but info gathering is not a downtime activity so none of that applies.

But if you do any activity that is colorable as a DT activity, and that's a WIDE range of things, then you are playing downtime, not free play and you need to follow those rules. Again, GMs shouldn't and probably usually don't try to be 'game mode police' but what you were suggesting, endless free play without ever initiating a score in which the PCs do all the DT and Score type actions but avoid abiding by the rules, is not kosher AT ALL and the GM should be stepping on that, hard. You are clearly not playing BitD if you allow this kind of thing.

Scores are very structured.
1. Players must provide 1 of 6 plans from pg 127. (assault, deception, stealth, occult, social, transport). Each also needs a unique detail provided (ex. the point of attack or the method od deception, etc)

2. Scores provide payoff (coin+rep) and the opportunity to perform more of the limited downtime activities. (see start of chapter 5).

You've not described how the actions my players were taking fit that structure, nor how getting coin would make sense for these actions. I'm with you in the sense I'd love to turn those into scores, but I'm not seeing how the rules support doing so.

Every one of the activities your players were engaging in were either one of the DT activities, or part of a score. At the point where they tried to start executing a score without doing the things that are required in order for a score to happen, the GM needs to be stopping the action and implementing the rules of the game! And here's the thing, if the participants in a game don't want to play it by the rules of BitD, that's great! I am not the rules police! However, don't then come and tell me how BitD sucks and is unworkable because you played some other game and it worked differently!

If I say my 5e game where we decided combats by coin toss doesn't work, what is your response going to be?! That is my response here.

Then even if I turned them into scores, the particular obstacles you could set up for doing something like sending a mailbomb aren't actually clear.

Oh, sure they are! You think the Doskvol mail system is a free-for-all that is unmonitored? I'm going to inform you that you KNOW people have tried this kind of thing before, and it went badly for them. Now, the PCs can dig, and try to find out exactly what sorts of measures the mail takes. Do they employ Leeches? Some sort of magitech? Can these things be defeated? What sort of explosive do you have to concoct in order to get it to go through? How difficult are the ingredients to find? Who will start asking questions when this bomb goes off, and will they realize YOU were in possession of the materials required to do it? I assure you, I can come up with an entire score's worth of stuff to throw at the PCs! It won't be your typical action adventure style breaking into somewhere and stealing stuff or whatever, but heck, even that might be an element! No problem making this a score.

Considering you've confused free play actions and limitations on downtime actions, either forgot or failed to mention how the specific actions in my example make sense in the structured score/payoff cycle, then I'm starting to think I have a better grasp of the rules as written.

No, nothing is 'confused', read the rules! Page 36 very specifically talks about gathering information and what it is, but also some things about what it isn't! So, sure, the PCs can play house and saunter about town etc. They can learn basically limitless common knowledge, and generally any amount of very basic stuff where there's 'no obstacle to learning it'. Even in the later case a fortune roll is required, so its possible there are negative consequences/costs accruing. Anything beyond that requires starting an LTP, which is a limited resource in that you need to use DT activities to advance that clock.

Right, note that you didn't make the score about him dicing them up.

In that case, no. As I said, it was a grey area, and as soon as he returned to the Orphanage (our base) some sort of entanglements with the Red Sashes immediately ensued. I don't recall all the details, and it involved activities by other PCs as well. However, if the players were attempting some sort of hokey "we're pretending we don't do scores" thing, then the GM MOST CERTAINLY could have, and maybe (ask @Manbearcat, he was the GM) would have turned it into a score. I'd note that we actually DID have a score later on where bad guys ASSAULTED OUR BASE and that WAS a score! Honestly, if I recall correctly, it was sort of a precipitating element. Like the attack both gave us info AND established the parameters of our reprisal. As page 8 says, the modes of play are not a straightjacket, but they do organize play.

So, on the whole, I would treat the actions you listed as examples as either DT activities that have to be paid for, or things that initiate scores. If players are refusing to name a plan or do other things that are part of their obligation then some kind of discussion needs to happen at the table about whether you actually want to play BitD.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

So why did none of the stickied and linked DM advice for BitD from that era reflect that? Why does nobody really agree with you? Why has everyone else pointed that the book is pretty unclear and disorganised, even if they feel that to differing degrees? Why are multiple other posters who run BitD saying they don't agree with you?

I would ask THEM this question! lol. I pointed to the rule, what more do I need to do? Read the section 'Starting the Game' on page 201 for a description of an initial start of play, the first session. While the situation is certainly 'in motion', the game DOES NOT start with a position roll! You're not catapulted instantly into a score. Play is most closely described as 'free play' at the start. The PCs ask questions, gather info, making inquiries, figure out who to align themselves with (or maybe to just sit back and watch for a chance to act in their own interests). Heck, on page 204 under 'opening a scene' there's even a nice hint at a way to actually turn the first scene into the start of a score:

"Are you actually here to kill him for the Red Sashes? (If so, do a flashback and pick a plan for the assassination.)"

Now, I agree it may well be possible to 'trigger' a score. I have suggested as much to @FrogReaver in response to his attempt to claim that BitD's structure is unworkable. I think the above quote is indicative of the sorts of techniques the GM would have available to them in order to accomplish that.

If it's so obvious as you pretend, none of that would be happening. Not even with RPG nerds. When rules in an RPG are genuinely obvious, everyone is leaping to say how obvious they are, and that's not I've seen here, nor elsewhere re: BitD in recent years. Further, one might note that many RPGs have a flaw where they explain a principle or three early on, and then undermine some or all of those principles with their actual text and structure later. Sounds you're describing exactly that, without acknowledging it.

No they're not. EnWorld is full to overflowing with 'RPG nerds', as you put it, endlessly and vociferously denying the most obvious and plain of truisms! Where am I 'undermining' anything? I have no idea what you even mean by this. The game is pretty clear about how things start and proceed. It IS pretty flexible, but I don't think that is 'undermining' anything. I think it is just stating that maybe sometimes you will want to interpret the 'modes of play' and such in a fairly flexible way.

You're basically saying "everyone is wrong and stupid except me!", whether you intend that or not, that is your de facto position.

Oye. I'm simply looking at the rules of the games in question and the play that I have experienced. Which one do you believe in, your own experience or posters on the Internet? I mean, I can only say it how it is. Honestly, to a large extent, when I hear things like this what I conclude is that everyone plays and experiences games in a slightly different way. So what SOME posters somewhere decided wasn't perfect for them, or that they were not comprehending something, etc. that's not someone laying down some law. I'm pointing out that there are people who don't have some of the problems that you specifically mentioned. In fact, my guess is that most of the people who didn't have problems, didn't start posting all about how they were perfectly satisfied, they just kept playing because it worked. So, it is probably not a great idea to generalize from "a few of the 1000's of people who played game X complained about Y" to Y is a big poo and needs to be excised from the game. I mean 1000's of people complained and complained about 4e SCs, yet the damned things work beautifully for many other people. I mean, if you hate fronts and you have some other thing you think works better, that's great. Concluding that fronts are therefor bad is however unwarranted. I find that the game works poorly without them! @Manbearcat, who's assuredly run plenty of DW, has yet a different position (I'll let him describe it if he is inclined, I don't think I can).

And I get that you're maybe not coming from the same place the as usual keen to say "GOTCHA!" PtbA and FitD people, but you're ending up in the same place nonetheless, aggressively accusing others of being dumb, blind, or liars, in only slightly more polite terms.

I'm pretty sure it's just called "being a DM" - most of what a Front does you do in your head anyway if you're used to running adventures as anything but the straightest railroads, if you've got an idea who is out there and so on. It's just a clumsy, poorly-explained formalization of a natural process - and don't try and deny it's clumsy and poorly explained - the subreddit clearly shows otherwise - fronts are one of the things that confuse people most, and it's frequently noted that the book does a singularly poor job of explaining them.

I don't claim to answer for other people. I didn't find them clumsy for me, nor did I ever really naturally do quite what a front is, though I agree they're not some sort of revolutionary radical new kind of thing. I found them to be a nice tool for organizing my thought space in a systematic way which allowed me to easily present front content as moves, which seems to be the intent. I'm not sure why people thought it was confusing. As a software engineer I would rate it as some fairly solid technical documentation, actually! Sure, there's going to be room/need to apply some common sense to the execution at times, but that's pretty much par for the course in RPGs, isn't it?

Anyway, you don't need Fronts at all. Sure, you're not running it RAW if don't have them, but the game itself on multiple occasions points out you don't have to run it RAW, and again, as I said, even not that long after release, the designers both said they didn't actually use them. One of them is in hiding these days since he got cancelled, but the other stated what he would do if he was making Dungeon World 2 (he isn't, though) and it was fairly hilarious, because it basically amounted to "strip literally every D&D-type connection or styling element or reward structure from the game and its mechanics" (and I'm pretty sure he mentioned not using Fronts there too).

Well, obviously you don't have to stick to RAW, or to anything. Honestly, I don't even think you are 'breaking a rule' exactly if you don't bring any fronts into play. The game describes the GM using them, but you are free to choose any move that complies with the principles and agenda of DW. At worst you are just leaving something on the table that you COULD use. However, I found, and other people have found, that the game feels a bit 'dead' without fronts (or potentially something equivalent, this I cannot speak to). As I said, I don't follow a lot of game designer news and, as typical for me with other games, when I got DW I just went back to my long list of people that I play things with and got going with it, relying on LONG GMing experience and a close reading of the text. Through play we discovered why the various parts are there, how they work, etc. So it may well be that Sage and Adam hate fronts and never use them. As I said before, everyone plays things a bit different. If I ever run into one of them maybe we'll discuss it, but I doubt that will happen.

As for Sage talking about wiping all 'trappings of D&D' from the game... Eh. I think there are some people who are frustrated with the way many people have simply skipped actually reading much of the game and just tried to play B/X D&D with it, treating 2d6 as if it was a d20 and missing the whole point. The D&D-class emulating playbooks and whatnot easily lets them do that. So that might be one motivation for wanting to change things. There may be others relating more to D&D culture, etc. However, I would say that I have 2 basic reactions:

1) D&D's classes really are pretty core archetypes of characters. So, sure, you could devise playbooks that didn't speak quite so directly to D&D classes, but at some level they're going to do somewhat similar things, especially if you are devising a game that lives in a similar space to D&D where it lets you depict fairly classic fantasy characters. I think attempts to change how the space is parsed up that are based on "not doing it like D&D" are ultimately going to just do it in a 2nd rate way.

2) The cat is so far out of the bag on this stuff that it isn't even funny. Stonetop, Ironsworn, and numerous other games have already taken general fantasy themes and reworked PbtA mechanics to handle them. I would point out that in each case the resulting game's playbooks look somewhat different from D&D's and yet A) not THAT different, and B) are devised to inhabit a much more specific niche than DW aims at.

So, it might be interesting to see what Sage would do with that. I certainly am in no position to criticize other people's ideas about RPGs to write, but I'm not sure DW needs that. IMHO it occupies a nice spot in the FRPG space and it wouldn't be hurt by a much more modest clean up. I mean, there have been some tweaks made, and Perilous Wilds definitely added some good stuff. It wouldn't hurt to have it all kind of cleaned up and polished a bit. FOR ME that can be a pretty mild update, but since I'm not volunteering to do it I don't really have any say.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I would've loved to play a Hound alongside my Whisper in our game. I only didn't play a Hound to begin with because I'd just played one in a previous campaign and we had somebody playing one in ours (but then he dropped out). I love the Hound playbook to bits.

This also gives me an idea for how to resolve an issue I have in another game where I want to play three different characters (if I ever get to play again)....

I really want to play a spider. I have some 'fun' ideas for a character, lol. Someday.