Dungeon World Meets Blades in the Dark

[Manbearcat]

I dig the playbook and company. The Fighter sounds like what we expect, and that's good. I like the ability names chosen. I think having a couple of base abilities right away is a good idea.

For the Avengers, the focus on cohorts and experts jumps out at me as a bit odd for the concept, but that may be in isolation without others to compare it to, as you guys suggest. Otherwise, it seems solid.

I would imagine that once you have a skeleton for each and maybe see them in play, then you can shift for thematic reasons as needed.

The focus on a Cohort as a member of the Watch and a Quartermaster Cohort is straight-forward.

Batman = Company

Commissioner Gordon = Cohort on the Watch

Alfred/Lucius Fox = Quartermaster

 

[Fenris-77]

Nothing strikes me as too meta!

I would think justification within the fiction would go something like this:

* Your enemies are on the move.

* They're doing bad stuff to the people that would canonize your Legend.

* Therefore, your Legend "stalls out", until you resolve this.



That's right.

I was talking more about the overt decision to do two smaller adventures rather than one large one. That said, the more I think about it terms of Blades framing the more reasonable it seems. I wonder if in the explanation for that it might be useful to have the default be two smaller problems, each with clocks, which forces a choice by the party. That sounds right to me. Or possibly linked problems? IDK, theres lots of cool ways to manage that.

Rather than defaults, perhaps just a good setbof examples about how to pick and frame this Legend stuff. Like, here's what one big one looks like, here's an example of 2, and finally an example of mutiole linked problems. Then the GM can pick a framework or example that seems right for his table and run with it.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I don't think that gets too meta, at all. I think if you're basing it on Blades, there'll be some meta baked in.

The idea that your Legend would kind of halt because you're not out tackling this much bigger issues makes sense, I think. "Oh yeah, you guys are great.....what about the dragon that's been marauding the countryside, huh?"

Got it on the cohort....makes sense! For some reason that context wasn't immediately apparent to me (I think the term "Irregulars" kind of stuck out as suitable for a different type of Company, but clearly that could probably fit multiple concepts).

 

[Manbearcat]

I was talking more about the overt decision to do two smaller adventures rather than one large one. That said, the more I think about it terms of Blades framing the more reasonable it seems. I wonder if in the explanation for that it might be useful to have the default be two smaller problems, each with clocks, which forces a choice by the party. That sounds right to me. Or possibly linked problems? IDK, theres lots of cool ways to manage that.

Rather than defaults, perhaps just a good setbof examples about how to pick and frame this Legend stuff. Like, here's what one big one looks like, here's an example of 2, and finally an example of mutiole linked problems. Then the GM can pick a framework or example that seems right for his table and run with it.

So are we at the point where you like this conceptual framework better than the initial one (which is basically reskinned Blades 1:1 w/ Quest subbed for Incarceration)?

 

[Fenris-77]

So are we at the point where you like this conceptual framework better than the initial one (which is basically reskinned Blades 1:1 w/ Quest subbed for Incarceration)?

I don't know about better. I think I would want to see each in action in short playtest. Take the same set of inciting events with fallout X, and then use each set of mechanics to adjudicate and push it forward. See how each feels, ideally from both sides of the screen.

 

[Manbearcat]

I don't know about better. I think I would want to see each in action in short playtest. Take the same set of inciting events with fallout X, and then use each set of mechanics to adjudicate and push it forward. See how each feels, ideally from both sides of the screen.

So you're not clairvoyant.

That's disappointing.

 

[Fenris-77]

Maybe if i had both mechanics right in front of me. It sometimes gets a little fuzzy round the edges when im working mostly from memory.

 

[Fenris-77]

It strikes me that from a design perspective a FitD game with Dungeons might want to aim for smaller dungeons, or at least not mega dungeons. Something in the range of the better one page dungeons, or even the wonderful stuff put out by Trilemma.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It strikes me that from a design perspective a FitD game with Dungeons might want to aim for smaller dungeons, or at least not mega dungeons. Something in the range of the better one page dungeons, or even the wonderful stuff put out by Trilemma.

I think smaller is probably easier to kind of design on the fly, or sketch loosely as needed. I don't think the system lends itself to prolonged exploration of one location.

But think of the Mines of Moria as portrayed in the films......you could totally pull that off with FitD mechanics. It's more about presenting it in a cinematic way with challenges that fit the theme, rather than some kind of exploration simulation.

 

[Fenris-77]

I think smaller is probably easier to kind of design on the fly, or sketch loosely as needed. I don't think the system lends itself to prolonged exploration of one location.

But think of the Mines of Moria as portrayed in the films......you could totally pull that off with FitD mechanics. It's more about presenting it in a cinematic way with challenges that fit the theme, rather than some kind of exploration simulation.

I think for larger spaces you want to do some very discrete framing and gating. I'd agree that standard mega-dungeon play isn't ideal, or even desirable though. I think that I'd probably include some examples and advice for how to frame larger delves in a way that works for FitD play. I think a lot of GMs, even Blades-savvy ones, might fall back on D&D habits for delves and that's a bad idea IMO.

Giving it some thought, I think that larger delves would be something I'd design as a flowchart rather than a map, with some lists or tables for each section to help narrate detail on the fly and keep them distinct. The whole idea of delves without a map is going to be foreign to a lot of people (myself included), so a little advice and structure could be very helpful.

Edit: I just got a zine called The Vast in the Dark, by Charles Ferguson-Avery who wrote Into the Wyrd and Wild, that has some great systems for designing dungeons on the fly. That might be worth a look. The Dorotka supplement has something similar that's also really well done.