Dungeon World Meets Blades in the Dark

[Fenris-77]

A selection of thoughts about the previous three posts.

1. Is alignment really what you want to go with? I might prefer something in character motivation or drive there. The idea of alignment is pretty loaded in the hobby so I might avoid it. I think something like drive is a little more personal anyway and could be more directly tied to playbook concerns.

Payoff - if you are going to treat the factions as quest givers, it might make sense to tie the faction game directly into the payoff for the score, both positively and negatively.

2. Company types - those all seem playbook indexed to me. Here's the question, are you planning to go with the Blades model where each player can take any playbook, or the DW model where the PBs aren't duplicated? In the second case I think you could lose the Company idea entirely and base that part on playbook stuff (i.e. reflecting the playbooks in the group). The game is already pretty strictly indexed to exploration and whatnot anyway and these companies seem a little bit redundant in terms of what they bring to the table for advancement and framing.

3. Legend and Quest - what is the thinking behind adding legend for being at war with another faction? Other than modelling that bit of Blades? It doesn't really track as legend the same way it does at heat. How about: +1 for a powerful foe; +1 for gaining a relic (significant magic or treasure, not just coin); +1 for defending the town (or a selection of specific factions based on playbook options). There's also the option to add options here from playbooks. I like the idea that truly legendary treasures should add +1 though, that's cool.

Quests - this seems like a perfect moment to allow a character a spotlight moment. I think treating this as something other than a special kind of adventure that the whole party can go on is probably a missed opportunity. If it's always high tier, and if it interrupts other downtime stuff, there's still a negative, above and beyond any specific failure conditions. The quest is, in a way, the capstone to one chapter of the party's legend, and it seems like they should all be involved. That's my take there anyway. I'm not sure exactly how, but if they were different than normal scores, it might feel very cool and special for the players, even though it's actually a problem and not a boon.

More generally, I like that you're sticking to Blades as the model, that's how I'd approach this as well - by starting with what's essentially a reskin. That said, I'd also be on the lookout for places where an actual change would serve to really advance what this game is trying to achieve in terms of story and feel.

 

[Emerikol]

A selection of thoughts about the previous three posts.

1. Is alignment really what you want to go with? I might prefer something in character motivation or drive there. The idea of alignment is pretty loaded in the hobby so I might avoid it. I think something like drive is a little more personal anyway and could be more directly tied to playbook concerns.

Payoff - if you are going to treat the factions as quest givers, it might make sense to tie the faction game directly into the payoff for the score, both positively and negatively.

Maybe motivations? I find alignment could be a motivation but there are other motivations besides just that one. Agree alignment is a bit loaded a term these days.

 

[Manbearcat]

Going to address each of these in separate posts (because I'm not sure I'm going to get to each as much as anything).

A selection of thoughts about the previous three posts.

1. Is alignment really what you want to go with? I might prefer something in character motivation or drive there. The idea of alignment is pretty loaded in the hobby so I might avoid it. I think something like drive is a little more personal anyway and could be more directly tied to playbook concerns.

Payoff - if you are going to treat the factions as quest givers, it might make sense to tie the faction game directly into the payoff for the score, both positively and negatively.

1) Dungeon World Alignment isn't like typical D&D Alignment. Its basically exactly what you're talking about. Its a pithy mission statement for the session to come; eg dramatic need. For instance, here are the default (there are tons more of you can make your own) for the Paladin:

Lawful - Deny mercy to a criminal or unbeliever.

Good - Endanger yourself to protect someone weaker than you.

So with the 1st Paladin, a GM is expected to frame a conflict around false doctrine, heresy, loss-of-faith, or criminality.

With the 2nd Paladin, a GM is expected to put someone incapable of defending themselves, but worthy of the defense, at risk.

Its "Drive" (or something similar) in everything but name only. Again, I don't want to reinvent the wheel so I'm going to keep everything that is relevant and works/is balanced.

2) On your Payoff suggestion - I'm not sure what you mean by "Factions as Quest-givers." This won't be a thing anymore than it is a thing already in Blades (eg the Crew determines their job based on Claim Map, their interests for this session, they go to their Allies/Contacts or they tool around Duskvol during Free Play until they settle on something).

I think maybe you're looking at the "Sub Quest for Incarceration" and extending that beyond its intent? That is just that one aspect of play/design. I had to reskin Incarceration so I needed (a) a thematic analog for removing Wanted Level which (b) takes a PC/Cohorts out of play for awhile (as Incarceration does). However, Incarceration is integrated directly with Bluecoats. Because there are no Bluecoats in this potential game, and Negative Factions/extraplanar powers/legendary monsters are the sub, it only make sense that they're the Quest Givers (and again, that is even if the Company wants to remove Impending Doom Levels).

Finally, this is overwhelmingly a reskin and thematically cohere effort. I'm not wanting to extremely limit anything in the vein of new rules and interactions that aren't already born out/tested in those games. So I'm not inclined to change aspects of this integration unless it is fundamentally necessary (to maintain thematic coherence and playability).

 

[Fenris-77]

Ah, yeah, I was thinking of D&D alignment there. Har har.

I was very much extending the subquest. It looked like a great opportunity to do something cool with the reskin. I think there are cooler things to do than just reskin incarceration. Ideas like that could be kept to the side as bolt-on modules that can be tried out in playtest.

When I said quest givers i was really just talking about how scores materialize out of the mechanics of the faction game. It terms of fantasy that often takes the form of more overt requests for help, so it might make sense to tie faction relations in directly. Teally that just amounts to making faction plusses part of the framing to start.

I appreciate to goal of faithful reskin, but I think that some deviation, in a limited way, could produce a much better finished product. Much of my commentary is going be in that vein.

 

[Manbearcat]

2. Company types - those all seem playbook indexed to me. Here's the question, are you planning to go with the Blades model where each player can take any playbook, or the DW model where the PBs aren't duplicated? In the second case I think you could lose the Company idea entirely and base that part on playbook stuff (i.e. reflecting the playbooks in the group). The game is already pretty strictly indexed to exploration and whatnot anyway and these companies seem a little bit redundant in terms of what they bring to the table for advancement and framing.

1) My initial question on this is "are the Company types more indexed to Playbook/class than in Blades?"

Assassins - Hound
Bravos - Cutter
Cult - Whisper
Hawkers - Leech
Shadows - Lurk
Social - Slide, Spider

Really on Smugglers doesn't index directly to a playbook.

2) Going the Dungeon World model where PBs aren't duplicated. So a few things on your thoughts:

* My experience with running Blades is that I've never run a game where I've had the same Playblook played by two players so I'm not clear on what work "in the second case I think you could lose the Company idea entirely and base that part on playbook stuff (i.e. reflecting the playbooks in the group)" is doing. Its always been that way.

* The play I'm envisioning (as a result of the game) wouldn't "pretty strictly index to exploration." Its not clear to me what you're seeing from the above that derives this inference. No Dungeon World game I've ever run indexes to exploration (as in "set out and see what is out there") and the only Adventure listed above that is similar is Range. Outside of that, the play loop is basically just like Blades but with Dungeon World tropes/aesthetic subbed in and Journey mechanics.

Could you elaborate on what is making you feel the game would "pretty strictly index to exploration?"

* I already put above how I feel that the redundancy you're mentioning above is already present in Blades. But to go a bit further:

- Losing the Company (Crew analog) aspect fundamentally changes the enterprise and the play experience. Since both of those are fundamental to what I'm looking to do here, that's not so much an option!

- Just like in Blades, there is nothing stopping a group of Smugglers from taking an Assassination or Social score (my games have never featured anything resembling heterogeneity when it comes to Crew archetype > Score archetype...our game should be a pretty strong anecdote for that!), there would similarly be nothing stopping a Companion of Wardens from doing Adventures in Town that aren't Range or Escort or Slay (et al).

- Finally, just like in Blades, the Companion Advancements would have general purpose Advancements that help the Company, but also specific-purpose Advancements that enable/amplify their specific portfolio (eg something like a Temple/Hospitaler to Recover or a Minstrel Cohort for Knights of a Faith).

 

[Manbearcat]

Ah, yeah, I was thinking of D&D alignment there. Har har.

I was very much extending the subquest. It looked like a great opportunity to do something cool with the reskin. I think there are cooler things to do than just reskin incarceration. Ideas like that could be kept to the side as bolt-on modules that can be tried out in playtest.

When I said quest givers i was really just talking about how scores materialize out of the mechanics of the faction game. It terms of fantasy that often takes the form of more overt requests for help, so it might make sense to tie faction relations in directly. Teally that just amounts to making faction plusses part of the framing to start.

I appreciate to goal of faithful reskin, but I think that some deviation, in a limited way, could produce a much better finished product. Much of my commentary is going be in that vein.

10-4 and I appreciate the input and the investigation of cognitive blind spots I may have immensely!

 

[Manbearcat]

Maybe motivations? I find alignment could be a motivation but there are other motivations besides just that one. Agree alignment is a bit loaded a term these days.

Check out my post above. Should be clearer. Does that help make better sense how Alignment works in this game?

 

[Manbearcat]

Quests - this seems like a perfect moment to allow a character a spotlight moment. I think treating this as something other than a special kind of adventure that the whole party can go on is probably a missed opportunity. If it's always high tier, and if it interrupts other downtime stuff, there's still a negative, above and beyond any specific failure conditions. The quest is, in a way, the capstone to one chapter of the party's legend, and it seems like they should all be involved. That's my take there anyway. I'm not sure exactly how, but if they were different than normal scores, it might feel very cool and special for the players, even though it's actually a problem and not a boon.

Couple things:

1) As I mentioned above, Quests is just a mechanical reskinning of Incarceration that needs to do all of the lifting of Incarceration but is thematically coherent.

2) My guess is that a not-insignificant portion of Adventures are going to be de-facto "quests" (whether that be entirely player-initiated like is overwhelmingly the case in Blades or whether the players go into Information Gathering/Free Play fairly agnostically and just discover something they find compelling that they want to initiate an Adventure around)!

 

[Fenris-77]

Yeah, the point of my posts has been to fling dung at the wall hoping you get a useful bits here or there. I don't have any particular expectations about how you use it.

 

[Manbearcat]

Real quick, I wanted to break down (a) what kind of Factions I'm envisioning and (b) what work I'm anticipating they'll be doing in this game.

(A) Here is a made up list of a few Factions for a game and their corresponding Tier.

Halfdan and Steele's Mining (III): Former underclass brothers who struck right at the beginning of the boom. The willingness to extort labor, crush unions, and buy off (or break...literally) competitors followed soon after.

Aslaug's Wagons, Coaches, Caravans (II): Third generation family business. But this particular Aslaug cut the horse overhead out of the mix and he's made money hand over fist. How do his vehicles move without horses? Its like he made a deal with devil.

Claw-hand Jake (I): Ex circus-performer turned bandit when the bigtop shut down. He doesn't have a lot of highwaymen under his claw...errr wing. But what he's got are the most vicious in the territory.

The Nest (III): The Carver is an Advanced Wyvern and probably the most prolific mother in the history of the world. Her endless supply of offspring have sent dozens of porters and ranchers into destitution or other lines of work. Either she's been blessed with supernatural fertility or something else is going on in at the tippy top of The Scar. Something...unnatural.

(B) So what work would those 4 do in a game. They would be sitting alongside benign Factions, pushing back against them. The Nest would be a problem for a Tier 1 Porters Union Faction or a big Tier 3 Cattleman that supplies most of the meat for the Town. Claw-hand Jake might be a liability for Aslaug. Halfdan would be a specific problem for Wardens (ecological impact) or Servants that champion "the people/underclass/labor class." Just like in Blades, there would be a network of provocations and the players would help create most of the Factions (at least the general, abstract idea of them) at the outset of play so they could have specific antagonists that push back against their dramatic needs...or are just plain interesting.

Just like Blades, once these Factions above "come online" (because they've interacted directly or indirectly with the PCs), it would be Faction Clock time. The PCs would then have to engage in Downtime Activities or Adventures to disrupt/shut down these Clocks...which would escalate the situation and trigger negative Faction...insert positive feedback loop where the Company is making enemies (and friends by proxy or directly) and stuff (Folktale and Tier and Legend and Impending Doom) spins out of that.