AbdulAlhazred
Legend
@Manbearcat have you manged to do any more testing?
Dungeon World Meets Blades in the Dark
Manbearcat
Legend
I have.
One session's Adventure was Social to persuade the city's laborers to strike and rise up against their oppressors (a mix of corrupt union leaders, wicked foremen, gangs, and the city's indifferent hierarchical structure). If you look at the Claim Map on post 115, the immediate north claim from their Hall (Of the People) was what was at stake here. They were wresting control of it from the Union Leadership (a Faction, so this earned them negative Faction with that group and positive Faction with The Under/Labor Class). It was framed right into a big Union meeting with the labor leadership (uncovered during Gather Info phase).
Their opposition was the collective fear, destitution, and powerlessness of the under/labor class and the political moxie of the labor leadership. It was a Tug of War Clock 10, starting at 4 (if they get to 10, they achieve the Win Con...0 and they fail). After several appeals to reason, appeals to emotion, taking the measure of the room's temperature, and intimidation/force against the leadership, Resist Complication, they won and they got the Claim (+2 Rep on Escorts).
The next session's Adventure was the actual Escort through the town with strike/picket and exhortations of corruption et al. We made a map and a key of the route in the city w/ a couple possible detours and potential obstacles, starting at the beginning of the route and finishing at the destination (the town square). As it should be on an Escort, its a mix of surveillance, recon/scouting, navigation of decision-points related to potential route obstacles, ensuring exposure, and shows of force where necessary (there were a brief skirmish with a Gang and posturing against a Watch blockade that eventually let them through).
Like the first one, this was also a successful Adventure (with +2 Legend gain due to Of the People Claim). This one was a Doom removal Adventure (as written above somewhere its 2:1 exchange rate). This Adventure started a 6 Tick Faction Clock to increase the Under/Labor Class Tier (repeating until stopped by a Faction...the PCs can interact with this via their own Downtime Activities).
Wizard has spent Downtime on Spell Longterm Projects, there has been an instance of Downtime Training, some management of Longterm Projects for opposition Faction Clocks that emerged as a result of Adventures, Acquiring Assets (Lookouts) for the Escort Adventure, the Bladesinger visiited their phantom fortune teller friend for Gambits for the Company, and the typical Stress management.
Last edited:
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
So, I'm curious, is it just that balance exists 'on the back of FitD' or is there an inherent kind of self-balancing that helps there in that design? You had wondered about the Wizard a while back. I was curious if just getting things in the right ballpark might be good enough in a game of this type. I mean, DW for instance doesn't seem to care THAT much about it. I guess perhaps if one playbook had a HUGE range of options compared to others, or their effects were fictionally really disproportionate, that might create SOME issues, but technically it wouldn't wreck the game. It would more just make the GM's work a bit harder.
hawkeyefan
Legend
@Manbearcat
So any pain points or areas where there were any issues with how game flows? Or mechanical imbalances or deficiencies across playbooks? Anything like that?
It sounds from your summaries above like the game is going well overall, so that's good to hear.
So any pain points or areas where there were any issues with how game flows? Or mechanical imbalances or deficiencies across playbooks? Anything like that?
It sounds from your summaries above like the game is going well overall, so that's good to hear.
Manbearcat
Legend
1) I’m not convinced the way the Legend <> Doom meter is integrated is good. I like the idea of fill up Legend from left ad Doom from right (so Doom complicates your progression/life), but I dot love how you get rid of it and I think I want ore consequences I play of Doom being filled up. Yes, it impacts Entanglements, but I really think I want some kind of either significant effect that drives play (doesn’t have to be Wanted Level...but something consequential and thematically provocative).
2) We/I don’t love the Wizard so I’m going to tweak the Wizard with a reskin of the Leech’s Alchemy/Bandolier mechanics (rather than just using it as inspiration) as it’s anchoring point. I’ll have the new iteration up in the coming days. I’m thinking less potential effects (there are 14 base...probably looking at 6 base) but being more robust to filling up the 3 boxes (eg you only fill up one of your 3 boxes and “lose the spell” if you voluntarily remove Volatile in the moment of casting...if you accept Volatile or Resist Volatile, you don’t tick one of your 3 boxes).
@AbdulAlhazred , I’ll answer your post separately. I don’t have the time at the moment.
I think that some version of Enemies/Rivals appear is thematically appropriate for Doom/Legend. It's not a wanted level, but it does reflect the kind of complications that would naturally accrue from both being famous and/or pissing the gods' ears. I'd probably tie it back to playbooks, with each one having some hooks for Doom, which would get fleshed out and integrated with background during char gen. Nothing specific, just some ideas about how PC type X tends to have their life complicated by fame and fortune. This would be a separate thing from entanglement issues. The picture I have in my head is either a dramatic uptick in the problem level of an existing enemy, or the appearance of a new rival. Exactly what that looks like would be based on the characters, their backgrounds, and the events of the game so far as well.
That's my spitball take anyway. I know it sounds like an entanglement, and in some ways it is, I'd just base it way more on the characters.
That's my spitball take anyway. I know it sounds like an entanglement, and in some ways it is, I'd just base it way more on the characters.
Manbearcat
Legend
That is broadly how I want it to work.
The question is how to design it and integrate it with the primary loop of play (again, think Wanted Level here) that (a) is structured and predictable (eg, as your Wanted Level creeps up, Entanglements become progressively more punishing) and (b) creates a consequential decision-point (eg does someone voluntarily become Incarcerated to resolve Wanted Level, therefore being removed from primary play and entering that minigame paradigm and providing access to Prison Claims).
The question is how to design it and integrate it with the primary loop of play (again, think Wanted Level here) that (a) is structured and predictable (eg, as your Wanted Level creeps up, Entanglements become progressively more punishing) and (b) creates a consequential decision-point (eg does someone voluntarily become Incarcerated to resolve Wanted Level, therefore being removed from primary play and entering that minigame paradigm and providing access to Prison Claims).
I think I'd avoid incarceration. I love it in Blades, but I'm not sure I love it here. So lets assume for a moment that it scales like Entanglements, but is indexed differently. I say that because I recall entanglements being something you were going to use on the homeward leg of a job, so that a different part of the play loop.
I'm just going to run wild here for a second. What if at character at char gen each player picked a rival and enemy type off of a list related to their playbook, similarly to what happens in Blades with the friend and rival. Call it an extension on the rival side. Maybe they can even make it up at char gen, in coop with the GM. Essentially they get to pick who (or what kind of person) hates them and is likely going to show up to pee in their cornflakes when the poop hits the hippos tail.
That leaves the GM with a list of possibilities for Doom related whatnot. So they could pick based on diegetic fit, they could randomize, or, here's an idea, maybe even let PCs volunteer for their problem to be the one that comes up. There's a piquant mix of spotlight and possible reward at work there. Once a PC has her past come back to bite her, she writes a new one that goes back into the communal pot. There could be some sort of reward on the PC end for tying up an arc for their character.
Anyway, I like the idea of tying it directly to the PCs.
I'm just going to run wild here for a second. What if at character at char gen each player picked a rival and enemy type off of a list related to their playbook, similarly to what happens in Blades with the friend and rival. Call it an extension on the rival side. Maybe they can even make it up at char gen, in coop with the GM. Essentially they get to pick who (or what kind of person) hates them and is likely going to show up to pee in their cornflakes when the poop hits the hippos tail.
That leaves the GM with a list of possibilities for Doom related whatnot. So they could pick based on diegetic fit, they could randomize, or, here's an idea, maybe even let PCs volunteer for their problem to be the one that comes up. There's a piquant mix of spotlight and possible reward at work there. Once a PC has her past come back to bite her, she writes a new one that goes back into the communal pot. There could be some sort of reward on the PC end for tying up an arc for their character.
Anyway, I like the idea of tying it directly to the PCs.
Manbearcat
Legend
I’m thinking about it in terms of Incarceration because of the qualities of (a) and (b) that I expressed above.
But I also am thinking about it like that because I don’t want this to be a “flex opportunity.” I want this to be thematically a “jump on the grenade” moment:
This sucks > your allies will be better for it > you will be changed > you have south of a fighting chance (but a chance) to come out of this not made worse for it but its going to fundamentally impact you regardless.
I'm thinking something similar to how Dogs in the Vineyards backstory conflict at character creation has the odds set against you. Its likely you'll lose the conflict, but win or lose it will be foundational.
So, in Blades (or this game's) tech, I'm thinking:
1) Frame thematic conflict with losing prospects.
2) Resolve conflict.
3) Odds are very good that PC will sustain a Trauma (because they lost the conflict).
4) Wanted Level (in this case Doom Level) resolved and PC is reset to how they were before the conflict started (though with Trauma if they lost).
But I also am thinking about it like that because I don’t want this to be a “flex opportunity.” I want this to be thematically a “jump on the grenade” moment:
This sucks > your allies will be better for it > you will be changed > you have south of a fighting chance (but a chance) to come out of this not made worse for it but its going to fundamentally impact you regardless.
I'm thinking something similar to how Dogs in the Vineyards backstory conflict at character creation has the odds set against you. Its likely you'll lose the conflict, but win or lose it will be foundational.
So, in Blades (or this game's) tech, I'm thinking:
1) Frame thematic conflict with losing prospects.
2) Resolve conflict.
3) Odds are very good that PC will sustain a Trauma (because they lost the conflict).
4) Wanted Level (in this case Doom Level) resolved and PC is reset to how they were before the conflict started (though with Trauma if they lost).
Similar Threads
