Dungeon World Meets Blades in the Dark

[Fenris-77]

Something else that could be of use imported from DW is the idea of fronts to focus in on specific kinds of threats outside the home base. That could be used as a touchstone for the GM to streamline the decision making process for individual adventures, and it would also be useful for framing entanglements.

 

[Manbearcat]

I was still considering Legend above to be a party thing, but assuming at the same time that each character is a part of that Legend and so, functionally, has Legend equal to the party total. You could certainly make it exclusively discrete I suppose, but I kind of like the idea that the Legend is a group thing as well. There are a ton of ways that could be connected to each character though. I think it will take some iteration and maybe playtest to really get a feel for it.

Maybe each character has a Legend tracker, and those collectively pool into into a party Legend tracker? If you up the scale of the party tracker or differentiate it somehow that could work. You could also tie trauma (Toll) to Legend if there's a discrete character tracker. There's also an opportunity to make Toll somewhat discrete by playbook as well. Perhaps a base number of shared Tolls, plus some playbook specific ones, an idea which could interface with playbook specific abilities and whatnot. The cost of hero-ing hits different characters differently.

Having Legend remain as a party total eases handling time/cognitive burden, so there is that.

The way it could work with each characters Impending Doom Tracker is (a) first a Fortune roll is made to determine which PC's Impending Doom is online for this post-Adventure Entanglement, (b) Roll the PC's Entanglement. This is orthodox Blades except for the extra step of (a) and (b) the Entanglement rolled for is not party-centric, but rather PC-centric. For instance, take the exact Adventure I outlined above. Go to post-Adventure Entanglements.

(a) Paladin comes up.

(b) The group is at Impending Doom 1 = 1d6. The Legend is rolled over at 2 so roll on the first Paladin Impending Doom Table. A 4 is rolled which results in:

False Doctrine or Test of Faith

Like orthodox Blades, the GM would pick one of two, frame a scene, and either a decision-point would be made by the Paladin PC (possibly with action resolution) and the scene would close, or the scene could be played out.

This would ensure that every Entanglement would be thematically attached to a PC rather than the general approach of addressing the premise of the game at large.

 

[Manbearcat]

Or...alternatively (and this might be the best approach), the Entanglement would be framed directly round either (a) the PC's Alignment Statement for this session or (b) one of the PC's Bonds (whichever hasn't been addressed/resolved this session).

To be honest, I think I like this approach the best. It (a) minimizes system having to be fleshed out, (b) reduces handling time, and (c) ensures that each Post-Adventure Entanglement interacts directly with a player-espoused dramatic need that has yet to be engaged with this session.

I think I'm leaning toward this.

 

[Fenris-77]

Yup, I like design goal of keeping the characters dramtic needs at the front of the framing queue, generally speaking.

 

[darkbard]

Super pressed for time, but Occam's Razor re above!

 

[Manbearcat]

Yup, I like design goal of keeping the characters dramtic needs at the front of the framing queue, generally speaking.

Super pressed for time, but Occam's Razor re above!

Yup. Again, Entanglements are things that go bad for PCs. So this approach would be a very interesting way to find out more about PCs, change them, and have fallout for the Company at large.

I'm thinking that at every given moment Bonds should be like so:

1 * Ally or Allied Faction
1 * Enemy or Enemy Faction
1 * Party Member
1 * Personal (eg if you're a Paladin it could be a relationship with heresy or the temptation of another Patron or your Oath/Obligation - sub for Vice)

So if Paladin comes up and you have Alignment = Mete out justice on a nonbeliever , the GM would choose between those 5 to frame a scene and a decision-point that will have some cost either way.

GM might go with this:

A Patron Cometh

An exarch of an alternative faith approaches the Paladin with a dark offer, promising their Obligation to the children of The Town will see immediate and direct sponsorship. Accept their bargain, hide until it loses interest (forfeit 3 Heroism - sub for Rep), or deal with it another way.

If the Paladin chooses "deal with it another way", we'd start a d6 Clock "No Fury Like a Dark Offer Scorned". The Paladin would have to deal with this either (a) by enlisting the Company to do a Score (perhaps a Ritual or Social) or (b) via a Downtime Project (where the clock has to tick before the Patron Clock goes off or face the Consequence).

 

[Fenris-77]

In the interests of keeping the connection between characters and setting high, perhaps the faction list should be flexible. I'm assuming the standard trope of a party of adventurers has come to a place for reasons. When it comes to initial setting creation it seems like you're aiming for generated over extant, which I think is a strong choice. So if the characters have come for reasons, those reasons can be reflected in the setting design. Perhaps each playbook also comes with a bespoke selection of possible factions, and the setting's factions are then generated partially from a general list and partially from the bespoke character lists. That might serve to further cement the character-setting connection, plus it's built in framing support for, well, everything.

Moving from factions creation first and then to the physicality of the setting might make it easier and more natural to design. If you know (from the character selections) that you need the following: a mercenary camp outside town, a temple dedicated to the God of knowledge, a branch of a big city thieves guild, and a knightly order dedicated to the eradication of evil - all based on character faction connections, you can work the rest of the factions and details around that core, as well as adventure fronts or the like should those be in use.

 

[Manbearcat]

That is all correct.

Step 1 - Make Characters and Company

Step 2 - Make Factions and Map (derived from/inspired by Step 1)

Step 3 - Play game and Factions/Map achieve higher resolution.

 

[Fenris-77]

Something I'm using in my current BH game that might be useful here is the idea of Adventuring Writs. So the company has a legal document that allows them to X and Y with responsibilities A and B, and prohibitions C and D.

That notion could play into XP, but at the least gives some nice handles for complications and entanglements. Im also having some success with rival companies as a plot thickener.

 

[Emerikol]

Something else that could be of use imported from DW is the idea of fronts to focus in on specific kinds of threats outside the home base. That could be used as a touchstone for the GM to streamline the decision making process for individual adventures, and it would also be useful for framing entanglements.

I never gave it a name but I very much agree with this approach and have used it throughout my DMing life.

Even the case where a clock comes into play is very similar to what I call my calendar. I don't tend to measure things down to the minute very often but I do have things happening on a schedule in the world barring some action by the group to change it.