• COMING SOON! -- The Awfully Cheerful Engine on Kickstarter! An action comedy RPG inspired by cheerful tabletop games of the 80s! With a foreword by Sandy 'Ghostbusters' Petersen, and VTT support!
log in or register to remove this ad

 

Dungeon World Meets Blades in the Dark

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
STRUCTURE

I'm envisioning Blades Structure but reskinned in a Torchbearer type way but with Dungeon World moves. Further, at the outset of play, you do just like Dungeon World. You make a map and you leave blanks. That map will have The Town which is the "home base of operations" for the Company at the beginning of the game. This might stay the home base throughout the game or the PCs might change their home base of operations (there will be incentive to stay there and incentive to move on). Creation of the Town will include layout/Wards and Factions (7-10 at the outset which includes infrastructure/government, essential trade guilds, rival Companies - which can include classic Thieves Guilds, Warlock Cabals, et al).

Beyond The Town, the only other thing that goes on the map at the initial session are the immediate topographical features directly outside of the town (perhaps its surrounded by Bleakwood Forest). The rest of the fleshing out of the map will happen through play (more on that below):

So here are my initial thoughts.

Town Phase

This is the analog for Blades' Free Play/Information Gathering phase. Here, the following happens:

* Companies look for Adventures (the Score analog) just like a Blades' Crew looks for Scores. This process will start filling out the map.

* If between Adventures, Company PCs get 2 * Downtime Activities (just like Blades except not a discrete phase).

* If an Adventure takes place in Town, the Entanglement that is rolled after the Adventure phase will be Town-related.

* Post-Adventure Payoff will take place here (all relevant accounting procedures).

Journey Phase

* If the Adventure takes place outside of Town, a Perilous Journey is required to get there.

* The rules for Perilous Wilds will be used here. For each day of Journey, there will be a Scout > then Navigate > then Make Camp (in which a Manage Provisions and Take Watch move will be made). This sequence of moves will determine (a) if there are an Dangers or Discoveries that have to be dealt with along the way, (b) the resolution of any Dangers/Discoveries, (c) the attrition of resources for the coming Adventure. This phase will also further flesh out the map.

* Most Adventures will be 1 day from Town, but some might be 2, or even 3. Each day requires a sequence of Journey moves to be made, which means that Loadout for each character (which I'll work on later) will have progressive devotion to Journey supplies the further out the Adventure is from the Town. However, Payoff will scale appropriately. The further the Adventure from town, the more Danger, the bigger Payoff.

Make Camp Phase

* This will be a mini version of the Town Phase, but in the wild. When in the wild (whether its a Journey or at an Adventure site), your Make Camp Phase will feature (i) 1 * Downtime Activity and (ii) a Take Watch move.

* Take Watch will determine if any Dangers or Discoveries take place during the Make Camp phase.

* Making Camp is not free. It will be resource-intensive, Danger-intensive, Loadout allocation-intensive. As such, it will be naturally restricted and an outgrowth of decision-points (do I want to Loadout more/pay a Porter in order to enable Make Camp?...do I want to spend the Coin...do I want risk the Danger?). For instance, if you have 4 characters going out into the wild, you'll have (at least) 4 Loadout Boxes that have to tick for Make Camp. If you want to be able to Make Camp * 3 (2 * Journey and 1 * Adventure), then you'll have brought 3 * Make Camp boxes to tick. Again, Load-out intensive and resource-intensive (it costs to secure those boxes to tick). Without those boxes to tick, you can't take advantage of 1 * Downtime Activity (which will be all of the things one would imagine from Recover to Prepare Spells/Commune to Salvage to Fortify etc).

Adventure Phase

* This will either be in town or in the wild.

* It will be handled just like Blades' Scores. Each PC will have a Loadout, selected Hirelings/Cohorts will be present (eg Porter/Donkey, Minstrel, Man-at-arms, Guide, et al), and an Engagement Roll will be made to cut right to the action/first obstacle (whether you're in the wild or in town).

* Once the Adventure is completed (successfully or not), there will be Entanglements rolled for. If you're in the wild, Entanglements will be related to your return journey home. If you're already in town, entanglements will be town/faction related.




Loop back to Town phase.

Thoughts? Questions?
Okay, I'm thinking on this, and I don't get it. I mean, I get it, it's pretty clearly cribbed straight from DW, but what I don't get is when it suddens says that the score will be like a Blades score. That's where I'm lost -- this is a pretty hard transition. We have a Perilous Journey, where things seem like they'll be at risk, and this happens before the score, but how do you map in the engagement roll for the score? This seems like it doesn't really click together, or I'm not seeing how it clicks together. I think we need to back up a tad and start with "what will the PCs be doing in this game?" If they will be plundering dungeons, the play loop needs to focus on this. If it's more, then we need to establish those broad boundaries of what, in general will be done. Then we can look to these kinds of mechanics to see if they fit what we're doing. As it is, I see a mechanic to handle travelling the wilds to a distant destination where some adventure will take place. That's dandy, but what's the adventure like?

I also think some thought needs to be put into how the perilous journey maps to the Actions set up above, and how Blades lets players decide which skill they use to approach a problem. The journey mechanic seems locked into a different set of checks from the Actions, and that's a tad jarring. If that's how it works, cool, but then I think it needs some other integration into the play loop, like having the Journey BE the engagement roll mechanic, to see how well the adventure is going when we join it, and establish that it's because of bad things on the trail. I'm not quite sure how that looks, but I'm also pretty sure it doesn't look quite like what you've laid out above.

I think some higher level consideration of what the focus of this game will be is needed to map the play loops onto that, rather than starting with the nifty ideas for mechanics and then figuring out how it maps. I'm starting to see a game where the players are dealing with a BBEG in each game, and adventure to seek the needed equipment, locations, intelligence, and skills to defeat it. But, then, I don't see how a faction setup like Blades works with this, but rather see things like Fronts being the primary way that PCs discover the big evil and also define it. I'm rather taken with the idea that removing the equivalent of Wanted means advancing the big bad in a concrete way, but this isn't my game.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Alright. @Ovinomancer and @hawkeyefan .

You've both got many questions and I feel like its going to be less productive to answer them individually (we can do that later) for now. I think it would be more productive to lay out exactly what inspired my thought for this prospective game and unpack that with more depth. The opening sentence under the STRUCTURE heading is below. This is what I'm going to unpack:

I'm envisioning Blades Structure but reskinned in a Torchbearer type way but with Dungeon World moves.

I bolded Torchbearer there because I haven't talked enough about this. This is the inciting thought that triggered this project:

"How would I best PbtA/FitD Torchbearer (its depth of decision-points and the consequential, Sword of Damocles nature of a play loop that gets away from you) but with more of a Dungeon World type of protagonism rather than the oppressive and brutal lives of adventurers in Torchbearer?"

So let me talk about what is necessary to extract from Torchbearer to hew to this idea:

STRUCTURE (LOOP)

* Town phase > Pending distance from town = TBD "Journey" phase (just Pathfinder Test or Conflict that is basically a mini-adventure Adventure phase?) > Adventure phase > Camp phase > Pending distance from town = TBD "Journey" phase (just Pathfinder Test or Conflict that is basically a mini-adventure Adventure phase?) > Town phase.

* There is also a Winter phase but I'm not including that.

What does this look like? It looks like Blades (if you take out the "Journey" phase). So what I did in the structural implementation is (a) map the necessary parts of Torchbearer onto this prospective game using (b) FitD Structure + (c) Dungeon World Journey mechanics.

1) I know the Torchbearer structure works.

2) I know the Blades structure works.

3) The two are entirely compatible, if not symmetrical, so just map job/reskin.

4) I know Dungeon World Journey mechanics works.

5) Integrating (3) and (4) is trivial (because, again, you're basically just subbing in DW Journey mechanics for TB's Pathfinder Test or Conflict).

TOWN EVENTS

* Torchbearer post-Adventure Town Events can be looked at like (a) Blades' Faction or Fortune Clocks ticking to full and going off at Downtime or (b) Blades' post-Score Entanglements (with the gamestate and mechanical fallout).

* Again, the level of compatibility or symmetry is there so its a trivial map job/reskin.

ILLUMINATE (ORIGINALLY LORE) AND CONSORT (ORIGINALLY RAPPORT) VS WISES AND CIRCLES

* So Torchbearer, being a Burning Wheel/Mouse Guard game, uses Wises and Circles. I'm fairly confident you guys are both very familiar with these mechanics (from our conversations if not firsthand yourselves), but I'll elaborate if not and/or for any readers:

1) Wises are dredging up obscure facts to help your situation.

2) Circles are dredging up relationships with NPCs to help your situation.

Those should look familiar because they map pretty much directly to Illuminate//Consort as I'm envisioning them and as Dungeon World uses them (as Burning Wheel was a primary inspiritation for the game); Spout Lore is the Wises Analogue and Carouse + tons of Playbook-specific moves are the Circles analogue.

If I'm going to hack this sort of game, those are necessary to have.

WHY USE FITD AS THE ENGINE FOR THIS?

* Simply put, I know it works as an engine...and I know it maps to this specific content I'm working toward. Functionality + Utility + Fun.

* The Faction/Company game provides:

- A certain type of player-facing hierarchical form to the setting that is missing from Torchbearer (Torchbearer has hierarchical structure but (a) its not player-facing and (b) its not a minigame - more on this below).

- The prospective hierarchical form to the setting that this gives allows for (a) greater diversity of obstacles (Fronts in DW) than Torchbearers and (b) Adventures to take place in the city that basically map entirely to Blades Scores.

- The hierarchical form it gives to the setting broadly and DW Fronts works beautifully in terms of mechanical interactions. If I need to (a) set Position/Effect with Tier-inequivalent parties (evaluating the level of threat/danger for Position and then assessing factors for Effect) or (b) come up with a Fortune Dice Pool or Opposing Faction Mission Clocks and resolve that stuff...its trivially done! Just use the Blades rules!

- The hierarchy game is fun! And it maps beautifully to 4e's aesthetic of play (which, again, I know works). Growing your Company and making decision-points within that mini-game and expanding your profile/exposure (Folktale) in order to martial further resources to take on bigger threats is fun! This already happens in Dungeon World, Torchbearer, et al! The Blades mechanics just gives it form and well-oiled machinery to make it happen!

DUNGEON WORLD (PERILOUS WILDS REALLY) JOURNEY MECHANICS MEETS BLADES ACTION RESOLUTION

* Who is Scouting? Who is Navigating? Who is Making Camp and Managing Provisions?

* Great * 3. Risky/Standard across the board for day 1 of this Journey.

* Scout, here are the conditions of the journey (describes the scene and including topographical features with likely a decision-point on where they're scouting from and some potential threat info). How are you Scouting? <Describes and picks Action Roll> Ok. Success with Complications. You take point and do your thing. Choose 1 of these; Did you find a Discovery...did you find a beneficial aspect of the terrain...if the Navigator gets you guys into a Danger you can ensure that it doesn't get the drop on the Company.

* Move to Navigator > rinse repeat > resolve any Danger/Discovery.

* Move to Make Camp/Manager Provisions > rinse repeat.

* Do Camp phase > Downtime Activity * 1 > Take Watch + Fortune Roll for Danger > resolve.

* Make Engagement Roll if at Adventure Site or move to Day 2 if multi-day Journey phase.

* Just like in Torchbearer, Adventures further from the Town are higher threat (Tier in this case) and the danger/resource drain is more significant (because Journey goes from being elided to just a single Test to an actual Conflict).

ENGAGEMENT ROLLS AFTER A JOURNEY? WHAT?

- I'm not feeling the weight of the concern here. When you make an Engagement Roll, we're already adding +1 d for Major Advantage or subtracting -1 d for a Major Disadvantage. This trivially mapped to the outcome of the Journey phase:

- Did the journey go as expected (Danger didn't snowball out of the ordinary, resources weren't disproportionately burned through, exposure wasn't above normal)? Swell enough, no take +1 or -1.

- Did the journey go particularly badly (Danger snowballed above normal, resources were burned through disproportionately, the exposure was above normal)? Crap! Take -1 to Engagement Roll which increases the chance of bad Positioning when I frame the opening scene of the Adventure phase (maybe the bad guys had a scout and saw the Company on the move...maybe the Company is particularly road-weary or demoralized).

- Did the journey go particularly well (Danger was either minimal or it was handled beautifully, resources were stabilized entirely or perhaps a Discovery was made along the way and a cache was found, the exposure was below normal)? Great! Take +1 to Engagement Roll!





Alright, all I have for tonight. I'll pick out things from you guys' specific posts tomorrow or early next week and respond (or I'll get a response up to a response to any of the above should there be one).
 
Last edited:

LOADOUT, FLASHBACKS, AND DEVIL'S BARGAINS

Brain is sorting through some of this right now so I wanted to get these thoughts down in this thread.

One big thought I'm having right now is a deviation from standard FitD Heist ethos and this game:

This game is only going to be an Act Now, Plan Later in part. Loadout will not be that part.


So when it comes to Loadout, I'm thinking you will still select Light, Normal, Heavy, Encumbered. However...unlike Blades, you will tick your boxes before the Adventure phase (and before Journey phase if your Adventure will be in the wild). This is a pretty different orientation to play from Blades, but (a) it is necessary for this sort of game and (b) you will be able to make limited amendments to Loadout selection (include a new item if it keeps you within your Load limits or, if it takes you over your present Load limits, untick a box for a piece of gear that hasn't come into play and retick another box of same Load or less) during the action Adventure/Journey phase via Flashback.

Quick example of what I'm imagining:

Bob the Fighter is heading out with his Company on an Adventure in the wild to Slay the Chimera that is laired in the valley a day from the Town. Because he is a Fighter, his Load is better than others'; 1-7 = Light, 8-9 = Normal, 10 = Heavy. He's bringing:

Scale Armor - 3 (Load)
Heavy Weapon - 2 Load
Hand Weapon - 1 Load
Camp Supplies (3 boxes) - 1 Load
Rations (4 boxes) - 0 Load
Adventuring Gear (3 boxes) - 1 Load
Healing Potion (1 box) - 0 Load

He's at 8, so that puts him at Normal with 1 Load to spare to keep him there. So, should a situation call for it, Bob's player can use a Flashback to say he packed Throwing Knives (3 Ammo boxes) or a Lantern (2 Use boxes) as each are Load 1. He wouldn't have to untick any boxes for that.

Further, Flashbacks could be used in combat as a "self" Setup move whereby you either improve your Position or Effect (always requiring an Action Roll and cost either 0 Stress if enemy is lower Tier, +1 Stress if enemy is same Tier, +2 Stress if above Tier). Outside of that, Flashbacks would have their same typical use (eg changing the situation on a Score in Town because of a setup prior).


Devils Bargain


I'm thinking of making this tied to playbook. Each playbook has 3 thematic choices of the players devising that they can choose to complicate their lives with (eg a Paladin might have Crisis of Faith + Needs of the Many vs the Needs of the Few + The Priest Tends to the Spirit...I Cut Out the Infection that Kills the Body). If they want a Devil's Bargain, the player announces it to the table, picks a thematic complication from the menu and the GM or another player proposes a Bargain in kind that addresses the present situation.
 

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
Alright. @Ovinomancer and @hawkeyefan .

You've both got many questions and I feel like its going to be less productive to answer them individually (we can do that later) for now. I think it would be more productive to lay out exactly what inspired my thought for this prospective game and unpack that with more depth. The opening sentence under the STRUCTURE heading is below. This is what I'm going to unpack:



I bolded Torchbearer there because I haven't talked enough about this. This is the inciting thought that triggered this project:

"How would I best PbtA/FitD Torchbearer (its depth of decision-points and the consequential, Sword of Damocles nature of a play loop that gets away from you) but with more of a Dungeon World type of protagonism rather than the oppressive and brutal lives of adventurers in Torchbearer?"

So let me talk about what is necessary to extract from Torchbearer to hew to this idea:

STRUCTURE (LOOP)

* Town phase > Pending distance from town = TBD "Journey" phase (just Pathfinder Test or Conflict that is basically a mini-adventure Adventure phase?) > Adventure phase > Camp phase > Pending distance from town = TBD "Journey" phase (just Pathfinder Test or Conflict that is basically a mini-adventure Adventure phase?) > Town phase.

* There is also a Winter phase but I'm not including that.

What does this look like? It looks like Blades (if you take out the "Journey" phase). So what I did in the structural implementation is (a) map the necessary parts of Torchbearer onto this prospective game using (b) FitD Structure + (c) Dungeon World Journey mechanics.

1) I know the Torchbearer structure works.

2) I know the Blades structure works.

3) The two are entirely compatible, if not symmetrical, so just map job/reskin.

4) I know Dungeon World Journey mechanics works.

5) Integrating (3) and (4) is trivial (because, again, you're basically just subbing in DW Journey mechanics for TB's Pathfinder Test or Conflict).
So, I have issues with 3 and 5, in that these systems are similar, yes, but are actually designed to do slightly different things and absolutely in different ways. Torchbearer is using these phases in the OSR style to generate the shit that happens. It's impersonal, and brutal, and puts pressure on the skilled play aspects of the game's design. Blades uses these phases to create new complications and enmesh the characters in a wooly ball of narrative problems. These are similar, yes, but they aim for different things. Plus, the implementation of these systems is pretty different. I don't think they are nearly as easy to integrate as you claim.

That said, I'm looking at a pure design standpoint, where these systems need to be clearly laid out to a new person learning them, whereas if you're making a personal hack, such problems can be papered over by you exercising GM fiat to do so. Which is a fair solution.

The Dungeon World journey mechanic also feels very different from the other two, and is starting to feel like an AD&D pastiche of mechanics rather than an integrated whole. Which, again, is just fine as I just said above -- it might not be great for a published work, but it can work a champ for a personal hack.
TOWN EVENTS

* Torchbearer post-Adventure Town Events can be looked at like (a) Blades' Faction or Fortune Clocks ticking to full and going off at Downtime or (b) Blades' post-Score Entanglements (with the gamestate and mechanical fallout).

* Again, the level of compatibility or symmetry is there so its a trivial map job/reskin.

ILLUMINATE (ORIGINALLY LORE) AND CONSORT (ORIGINALLY RAPPORT) VS WISES AND CIRCLES

* So Torchbearer, being a Burning Wheel/Mouse Guard game, uses Wises and Circles. I'm fairly confident you guys are both very familiar with these mechanics (from our conversations if not firsthand yourselves), but I'll elaborate if not and/or for any readers:

1) Wises are dredging up obscure facts to help your situation.

2) Circles are dredging up relationships with NPCs to help your situation.

Those should look familiar because they map pretty much directly to Illuminate//Consort as I'm envisioning them and as Dungeon World uses them (as Burning Wheel was a primary inspiritation for the game); Spout Lore is the Wises Analogue and Carouse + tons of Playbook-specific moves are the Circles analogue.

If I'm going to hack this sort of game, those are necessary to have.
I don't think this is so, and also, again goes to the pastiche of mechanics. Again, I go back to Indiana Jones, and don't really see the need for these kinds of mechanics in creating that fiction, from start to finish. If it's important to do this -- to have a mechanic where the player is using a setup move to create new fictional positioning against an established obstacle -- I think that the existing mechanics in Blades do this well enough -- you can absolutely use those moves as setups, just like any other moves. My complaint is that you're positioning these as only setup moves, which bucks the trend in the rest of the actions.
WHY USE FITD AS THE ENGINE FOR THIS?

* Simply put, I know it works as an engine...and I know it maps to this specific content I'm working toward. Functionality + Utility + Fun.

* The Faction/Company game provides:

- A certain type of player-facing hierarchical form to the setting that is missing from Torchbearer (Torchbearer has hierarchical structure but (a) its not player-facing and (b) its not a minigame - more on this below).

- The prospective hierarchical form to the setting that this gives allows for (a) greater diversity of obstacles (Fronts in DW) than Torchbearers and (b) Adventures to take place in the city that basically map entirely to Blades Scores.

- The hierarchical form it gives to the setting broadly and DW Fronts works beautifully in terms of mechanical interactions. If I need to (a) set Position/Effect with Tier-inequivalent parties (evaluating the level of threat/danger for Position and then assessing factors for Effect) or (b) come up with a Fortune Dice Pool or Opposing Faction Mission Clocks and resolve that stuff...its trivially done! Just use the Blades rules!

- The hierarchy game is fun! And it maps beautifully to 4e's aesthetic of play (which, again, I know works). Growing your Company and making decision-points within that mini-game and expanding your profile/exposure (Folklore) in order to martial further resources to take on bigger threats is fun! This already happens in Dungeon World, Torchbearer, et al! The Blades mechanics just gives it form and well-oiled machinery to make it happen!
So, to me, the biggest challenge to adapting Blades is what you're calling a strength, here -- the Faction game. This is so tightly integrated into the concepts in FitD games and into the settings of those games that it is, in my opinion, the single largest point of design in any remapping of the FitD system. This, to me, is the majority of the design work, and it absolutely requires a strong statement to what play will be about so it can reinforce it. Your mission statement, to do Torchbearer with protagonism, is good and high level, but it doesn't have the setting theme necessary to really build a faction game. YMMV, but I'd love to see some more about the faction game you envision rather than more on how you plan to integrate the Journey mechanic. This is, IMO, a bolt on mechanic and so doesn't integrate into the setting tightly but rather sits upon it to achieve a specific mechanical end -- ie, applying stress to the PCs prior to the adventure.
DUNGEON WORLD (PERILOUS WILDS REALLY) JOURNEY MECHANICS MEETS BLADES ACTION RESOLUTION

* Who is Scouting? Who is Navigating? Who is Making Camp and Managing Provisions?

* Great * 3. Risky/Standard across the board for day 1 of this Journey.

* Scout, here are the conditions of the journey (describes the scene and including topographical features with likely a decision-point on where they're scouting from and some potential threat info). How are you Scouting? <Describes and picks Action Roll> Ok. Success with Complications. You take point and do your thing. Choose 1 of these; Did you find a Discovery...did you find a beneficial aspect of the terrain...if the Navigator gets you guys into a Danger you can ensure that it doesn't get the drop on the Company.

* Move to Navigator > rinse repeat > resolve any Danger/Discovery.

* Move to Make Camp/Manager Provisions > rinse repeat.

* Do Camp phase > Downtime Activity * 1 > Take Watch + Fortune Roll for Danger > resolve.

* Make Engagement Roll if at Adventure Site or move to Day 2 if multi-day Journey phase.

* Just like in Torchbearer, Adventures further from the Town are higher threat (Tier in this case) and the danger/resource drain is more significant (because Journey goes from being elided to just a single Test to an actual Conflict).

ENGAGEMENT ROLLS AFTER A JOURNEY? WHAT?

- I'm not feeling the weight of the concern here. When you make an Engagement Roll, we're already adding +1 d for Major Advantage or subtracting -1 d for a Major Disadvantage. This trivially mapped to the outcome of the Journey phase:

- Did the journey go as expected (Danger didn't snowball out of the ordinary, resources weren't disproportionately burned through, exposure wasn't above normal)? Swell enough, no take +1 or -1.

- Did the journey go particularly badly (Danger snowballed above normal, resources were burned through disproportionately, the exposure was above normal)? Crap! Take -1 to Engagement Roll which increases the chance of bad Positioning when I frame the opening scene of the Adventure phase (maybe the bad guys had a scout and saw the Company on the move...maybe the Company is particularly road-weary or demoralized).

- Did the journey go particularly well (Danger was either minimal or it was handled beautifully, resources were stabilized entirely or perhaps a Discovery was made along the way and a cache was found, the exposure was below normal)? Great! Take +1 to Engagement Roll!





Alright, all I have for tonight. I'll pick out things from you guys' specific posts tomorrow or early next week and respond (or I'll get a response up to a response to any of the above should there be one).
So, again, I think that this statement that it's trivial to integrate the Journey mechanic into the Engagement roll is very fraught. Of all the things in this post, this is the one that stands out as the most abrupt and disjoined. I say this because, as I understand it, the Journey mechanic creates fiction through play -- it establishes the story and danger of a trek through the wilderness to arrive at your destination. The Engagement roll, on the other hand, it meant to elide everything from concept to execution and drop the PCs directly into the action right at the point things go wrong. These things fight each other. And, if you're using Journey results as inputs to an engagement roll, you are double counting things -- the failure in the Journey mechanic has already exacted a cost and some fiction, and that's not feeding into the Engagement as another negative.

Plus, there's the thing that the Journey ends at arriving at the location, but the Engagement is supposed to get to the first obstacle. What's the bridge between arriving at the adventure and then skipping whatever is between that arrival and where the action of the adventure starts?

I also like the Journey mechanic -- I really do -- I'm just not clear on how this is integrating into a score mechanic well. If anything, I'd look at Journey as a type of score, rather than a lead into a score.


And, all that said, I want to caveat this as constructive -- if you ignore it I will not, in any way, be offended. And, I hope, in giving it, that it's received as a friendly concern and in the constructive manner it's intended. I think it would be just fine if you hack these things together and use your appreciation of how it's supposed to work to run this. There's enough here for that, and I can see it. I'm pointing out places where I think it's relying on this, though, and not on independent design. Not a bad thing at all.
 

Fenris-77

Small God of the Dozens
Supporter
I don't have any issues using the Journey rules to modify Engagement rolls. In Blades there are a list of things that can modify engagement rolls anyway, and some of those aren't going to map well onto a different genre. So rather than the list in Blades, you have the Journey. Provided there is the opportunity to both positively and negatively affect the engagement roll I think it will work just fine. Getting the granularity right will be a task, but that's a details level problem IMO, not a design level problem. Some transparency in the design phase about how X and Y modifiers are being replaced would be essential of course, as a reskin requires that those mods be mirrored appropriately in terms of ease of acquisition and whatnot. It's not that hard in Blades to get a extra die or two to engagement based strictly on planning and aproach, so that should continue to true in the reskin.

Circles and Wises, however, I have a bigger design issue with. Not that those two things don't conceptually map with Consort and Lore, because they do, but rather the stakes of a character being proficient, or not, in those areas ends up being very different. In Torchbearer those two things are related to class choice and answering a series of questions. They are not related directly to a stat. So an Elf in Torchbearer gets wises X and circles Y independent of their statline. However, by tying those things to stats in Blades you are making circles and wises essentially a stat, and something that a character can only be good at by sacrificing being good at something else (something probably more directly indexed to journeys and delves). That is a very different inflection point in character creation.

The game of Blades is always happening, so speak, within the confines of the faction game. The action of the game doesn't escape the orbit of faction relations at any point. That tight bit of design is part of why Blades works so well. However, in a more DW approach, with journeys and whatnot, the game will escape that orbit on a more regular basis. Town factions are relegated in many instances to impacting and being impacted by just a part of the game loop. This is different from Blades. What I've seen of the design choices so far seems to potentially shrink the impact of the faction game overall, but also increase the opportunity cost of being good at the social moves that impact that same faction game. This seems like a poor coupling to me.

I'm not sure what the answer is here. Possibly faction relationships can add dice to consort moves with that faction. So my fighter might not be generally good at consort, but within the confines of his friendly factions he's significantly more impactful. IDK. Wises could be handled the same way, as tags generated during chargen that add dice to Lore rolls in specific instances.
 

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
I don't have any issues using the Journey rules to modify Engagement rolls. In Blades there are a list of things that can modify engagement rolls anyway, and some of those aren't going to map well onto a different genre. So rather than the list in Blades, you have the Journey. Provided there is the opportunity to both positively and negatively affect the engagement roll I think it will work just fine. Getting the granularity right will be a task, but that's a details level problem IMO, not a design level problem. Some transparency in the design phase about how X and Y modifiers are being replaced would be essential of course, as a reskin requires that those mods be mirrored appropriately in terms of ease of acquisition and whatnot. It's not that hard in Blades to get a extra die or two to engagement based strictly on planning and aproach, so that should continue to true in the reskin.

Circles and Wises, however, I have a bigger design issue with. Not that those two things don't conceptually map with Consort and Lore, because they do, but rather the stakes of a character being proficient, or not, in those areas ends up being very different. In Torchbearer those two things are related to class choice and answering a series of questions. They are not related directly to a stat. So an Elf in Torchbearer gets wises X and circles Y independent of their statline. However, by tying those things to stats in Blades you are making circles and wises essentially a stat, and something that a character can only be good at by sacrificing being good at something else (something probably more directly indexed to journeys and delves). That is a very different inflection point in character creation.

The game of Blades is always happening, so speak, within the confines of the faction game. The action of the game doesn't escape the orbit of faction relations at any point. That tight bit of design is part of why Blades works so well. However, in a more DW approach, with journeys and whatnot, the game will escape that orbit on a more regular basis. Town factions are relegated in many instances to impacting and being impacted by just a part of the game loop. This is different from Blades. What I've seen of the design choices so far seems to potentially shrink the impact of the faction game overall, but also increase the opportunity cost of being good at the social moves that impact that same faction game. This seems like a poor coupling to me.

I'm not sure what the answer is here. Possibly faction relationships can add dice to consort moves with that faction. So my fighter might not be generally good at consort, but within the confines of his friendly factions he's significantly more impactful. IDK. Wises could be handled the same way, as tags generated during chargen that add dice to Lore rolls in specific instances.
Okay, this seems like I didn't make my point well about Journey/Engagement. What I'm trying to say is that these two mechanics are doing the same thing, but in different ways. Journey is used to see how well you get to the adventure, and Engagement is also used to see how well you get to the adventure. These are at different resolutions, sure, but they're doing effectively the same thing in the design -- putting the initial situation under stress. That's my main point -- these don't synergize because they're doing the same thing, and you really only need do that thing once. And, the space between these two resolutions is unclear -- how do I move from the higher resolution Journey mechanic, to a sudden low resolution Engagement mechanic, to a very high resolution Score mechanic? It's this shift in resolutions without clear lead ins. I think things need to move from low to high resolution smoothly, as it does in Blades, or stay at a consistent level of resolution, as it does in DW. This sudden shift in resolution without moving places in the playloop (were still in "what happens on the way to adventure" with both Journey and Engagement) feels weird.

And, also, if I have consequences for a failure in the Journey phase, that exacts costs right there. Adding it to the Engagement roll seems like doubling down.

And, all this said, I'm not really seeing a place for Engagement at all right now -- how will this work with the Approach and Detail for adventure sites?
 

Fenris-77

Small God of the Dozens
Supporter
No, I heard you, I just dont really agree. I think your reservations stem from just looking at those two things in isolation, whereas I am assuming some other parts are involved. It depends, for me, on the extent and manner in which the journey replaces or modifies the current bonuses and penalties to engagement. Basically, I'm saying I can picture how to accomplish it, so the devil is in the details. YMMV, of course.
 

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
No, I heard you, I just dont really agree. I think your reservations stem from just looking at those two things in isolation, whereas I am assuming some other parts are involved. It depends, for me, on the extent and manner in which the journey replaces or modifies the current bonuses and penalties to engagement. Basically, I'm saying I can picture how to accomplish it, so the devil is in the details. YMMV, of course.
Well, no, a big part of my reservation is that I don't see how they work together -- the abrupt shift in resolution seems jarring to me, and the suggested intermeshing of the two is to pull failure in one into the mechanical resolution of the next, whereas I would prefer something that using the fiction generated in one to establish the foundation of the next. Taking in a +/- die for a result doesn't really do this. Sure, you can paper it over by tailoring the initial situation of the Engagement roll to reflect the failure fiction from the Journey, but that's a coupling that skips a few steps instead of rolling through.

I'm mostly trying to make sure that my point is well understood here, and not dismissed due to a misunderstanding. If it's dismissed because people have a different opinion, then great, no issues.
 

Fenris-77

Small God of the Dozens
Supporter
Well, no, a big part of my reservation is that I don't see how they work together -- the abrupt shift in resolution seems jarring to me, and the suggested intermeshing of the two is to pull failure in one into the mechanical resolution of the next, whereas I would prefer something that using the fiction generated in one to establish the foundation of the next. Taking in a +/- die for a result doesn't really do this. Sure, you can paper it over by tailoring the initial situation of the Engagement roll to reflect the failure fiction from the Journey, but that's a coupling that skips a few steps instead of rolling through.

I'm mostly trying to make sure that my point is well understood here, and not dismissed due to a misunderstanding. If it's dismissed because people have a different opinion, then great, no issues.
Ok, so to start I do understand your reservations, and they are completely valid. My conception of how this could be made to work is also not the same as MBCs, Im sure, so this isnt quite me agreeing with his post and disagreeing with yours. I think the Journey could be made to incorporate most the nesessary mechanics to modify the engagement roll. Not just the outcome of the journey itself, but also incorporating various DT activities before and during. What's missing is a more granular account of exactly what that looks like. I'd probably do something like this:

1. Journey results effect geography and resource use, both of which can easily be framed as engagement consequences.

2. DT stuff like Lore, rumours or equipment that could change positioning in terms of knowing weaknesses or secrets.

What doesn't fit are things like Hunting grounds and some of the specifics from the Blades list. I'd elide those and reinsert them in one of the above. My model splits engagement modifiers between the journey results and preparedness.

So again, in my head I can see how I'd make that work. I'm not sure the extent to which that maps to MBCs answer to the same question.
 

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
Ok, so to start I do understand your reservations, and they are completely valid. My conception of how this could be made to work is also not the same as MBCs, Im sure, so this isnt quite me agreeing with his post and disagreeing with yours. I think the Journey could be made to incorporate most the nesessary mechanics to modify the engagement roll. Not just the outcome of the journey itself, but also incorporating various DT activities before and during. What's missing is a more granular account of exactly what that looks like. I'd probably do something like this:

1. Journey results effect geography and resource use, both of which can easily be framed as engagement consequences.

2. DT stuff like Lore, rumours or equipment that could change positioning in terms of knowing weaknesses or secrets.

What doesn't fit are things like Hunting grounds and some of the specifics from the Blades list. I'd elide those and reinsert them in one of the above. My model splits engagement modifiers between the journey results and preparedness.

So again, in my head I can see how I'd make that work. I'm not sure the extent to which that maps to MBCs answer to the same question.
I guess, then, the bigger question here is what does a score look like so that we can make sure these things are actually feeding into the score?
 

Fenris-77

Small God of the Dozens
Supporter
I guess, then, the bigger question here is what does a score look like so that we can make sure these things are actually feeding into the score?
This is something that's on my list, yeah. I think that delves, for example, will need to look at least somewhat different than a normal Blades score, or at least more structured initially, so it's an important question. I think there may need to be a little more structure built-in around score type, and that would seem to me to be the obvious place to build in those engagement consequences.

This could be as simple, generally, as having adventure type specific inputs for the Journey modifier outputs. You don't want to take away the immediacy of Blades framing here of course, that would be a negative IMO, but maybe just suggest via a list of some kind, what negative and positive initial framing might look like for different kinds of adventures.
 

So I entirely missed the bit about Folktale being an analog for Rep. Until I noticed it, I was thinking Doom could maybe be both Heat and Rep.

Is that feasible?

Essentially, this would connect Tier to Legend. Which when you think about it, it makes sense.

If players can spend Legend the same way that they spend Rep in Blades to have extra DT Activities, that gives them the ability to avoid Doom if they want. But it would be at the expense of going up in Tier. Seems like some potentially interesting decision points.

Again, just spitballing.

Alright, rethinking Impending Doom/Doom and Quest.

There are no levels. Impending Doom just turns to Doom after Legend ticks it full.

Once that happens, one of your Positive Factions/Friends or Allies (if its The Town's Engineers or The Town Guard - it might be an actual siege of the Town walls...if its is The Church, it might be a sustained campaign by unbelievers to demoralize the flock or actual terrorism...if its The Underclass, it might be a brutal taxation or indentured servitude scheme by the aristocracy/governor, etc) is under sustained siege that they cannot recover from without your help. This is either with an existing Negative Faction that you're Enemies with (eg The Faithless are attacking The Church) or a new Faction becomes your Enemy (-1 Faction Status). Regardless, this Faction will be higher Tier than your Friend/Ally, so, left to their own devices, your Friend/Ally will almost surely be down-tiered by the conflict. Until you resolve this conflict, you're in a somewhat similar situation to At-War. Let's call this status either Oath or Quest.

During Doom, the Company:

1) Gets only 1 Downtime Activity during Downtime Phase (Camp phase still gets 1).

2) Gain only half Folktale from Adventures.

3) This Friend/Ally is not available to you until Oath/Quest status is resolved. This could have implications on Adventures available or Downtime Activities/bonuses to available (eg The Church for the Paladin's Faith or The Orphanage for the Fighter's Obligation or The Hospitaler for the Company's Recover move).

4) You don't gain any further Legend from Adventures (good), because you're already maxed and in Doom...but start a Faction Tug-of-War Clock 8 and set it at 5. During Downtime, tick it for the opposing Factions (Fortune Rolls). If it fills, your Friend/Ally Loses Tier. If it goes to 1, they've somehow managed to handle the crisis on their own. Regardless if they prevail or lose, you lose 1 Faction with your Friend/Ally.

5) Whether you resolve Oath/Quest via an Adventure, or (4) resolves it, afterward, your Legend resets to 1 and you're back in Impending Doom.

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:

Zooming back out, I can't recall if I've made it clear what The Faction Game is for in this prospective game.

In Blades, The Faction Game is an end unto itself. The Win Con in Blades is to ascend the hierarchy (to Tier 6).

That is NOT the Win Con in this game. Ascending hierarchy in this game is the means * 2 to the (end) Win Con in this game, which is (#1) defeat your espoused enemies at the outset of the game. The ultimate Win Con being, defeat the Tier 6 Front/Faction outlined in the original session.

The secondary means to the Win Con is an archetectural/systemization one. It (#2) systematizes your Company's progress and the progress of your Company's Friends/Allies so that the climb to become capable of achieving the ultimate Win Con of the game is mechanically actuated.
 

Alright, I don't have a ton of time to discuss a lot of things. Just going to pick out some things and discuss them. @Ovinomancer and @Fenris-77

1) On Wises (Illuminate/Spout Lore/Study) and Circles (Consort/Carouse + tons of Playbook abilities) in Dungeon World/Blades. Its unclear to me (from an application within play) why these things are controversial. These things are present in both games as either orthodox or niche application of base moves, they're heavily distributed among playbooks (Fighters consult the spirits of their sword, Rangers consult animals, Thieves/Spiders consult their underworld contacts, Bards consult whomever the eff they want, Clerics/Wizards/Whispers consult the supernatural), and Blades codifies this w/ Friends/Allies and Info Gathering (where these things see heavy usage) and use w/ Acquire Asset or Longterm Project in DTAs.

2) I think the conversation/thoughts on hardness of scene framing or "scene transition flow" is interesting. Its something that I've seen be an issue for some people in various games (4e D&D which is a Action Scene > Hard Transition > Action Scene rinse/repeat was typically called "jarring" by certain folks). There is a personal litmus test there that is happening which I think is difficult to suss out. I personally haven't felt this in any scene-framed game, but plenty of folks feel it in some games but not in others.

"What work is the engagement roll doing in Journey's/it seems incoherent or a poor fit." On this, I have some commentary and a question.

Commentary

The Engagement Roll serves a dual purpose:

1) It allows player decision-points and resource allocation (who to talk to, what actions to take, what DTAs to devote to this next score if any, who/what to focus on as target) to mechanically impact (Position) the opening framing of the Score and, through that, the fiction/gamestate.

2) Cut to the Action. It lets us get right to the first serious obstacle of the Score. This creates a hard transition where we elide all of what happened from the end of the Information Gathering/Free Play scene(s) (which is going to be a fair bit temporally and spatially) to some segment (first serious obstacle) of the Score.

Given the above (which you guys both know...but I'm putting it out there to capture my train of thought), its not clear to me why going from Info Gathering > First Serious Obstacle of Score via Engagement Roll is in "feels right" territory but Journey > First Serious Obstacle of Adventure via Engagement Roll is in "jarring" territory.

It seems like (a) End of Journey will likely elide similar (or even less) temporal/spatial information in its transition to Adventure than Info Gathering/Free Play will in its transition to Score, (b) its unclear to me why it matters if it was a bit more or a bit less (or even the same), (c) the other option is to rid "in the wild" Adventures of (1) above which means that the GM is extrapolating opening Position for Adventure Obstacle # 1 rather than mechanically instantiating it (its not clear to me how that is an improvement), (d) I still don't see how a 1/2/3 day Journey's contributory effects on the coming Adventure isn't something that should be seriously relevant (and therefore operationalized via +1/-1 to Engagement Roll).

Question

This is Harper's offering for a Blades Fantasy Hack where a dangerous journey is to take place before a Score (he doesn't give a name for this...but let's call it...Adventure!). Below he instantiates it as (a) a Fortune Roll which (b) assumes a hexcrawl map with Zones. I wonder how you guys feel about this procedure in place of the Perilous Journey procedure?

Changing the Game p 233
THERE OR BACK AGAIN

Make a fortune roll to see how dangerous a journey is. Take 1d for each map zone traveled through. Adjust the number of dice down for safer routes (quality guides, friendly factions in zones, etc.) or up for more dangerous routes (alpha predators, Witch-king cults, enemy factions, etc.).

Critical: A hazard strikes without warning. An ambush drops into the middle of the party, guns blazing. A Razormaw’s tendrils entwine half the party and drag them away.

6: A hazard strikes but there is time to react. Suddenly a PC is caught in a web and covered in Shirkers. A bandit ambush is revealed by the crack of gunfire. A Grey Fox patrol demands “protection” tax.

4/5: A hazard protects something of value. A magi and their hirelings are under attack by a group of bandits. A group of white apes are spotted picking over an abandoned pilgrim camp.

1-3: No dangers arise or some small advantage is gained. A cache of supplies are found in a box at the waystation with a note reading “take only what you need.” A merchant offers a safer route or just the right tool.

The GM then decides in which zone the encounter happens. After things are resolved, if the players press on, cut to the destination.

This sounds cool. I like it.

First, a thought and a few issues.

Thought

Its clear that Harper still intends an Engagement Roll here because he doesn't say no Engagement Roll (he says "cut to the destination...which is what you do with the Info Gathering > Score transition). So it appears that he's still systematizing Engagement Roll to determine Position for the first relevant obstacle of the Score (Adventure in the wild).

Is this is a problem in the vein that we have above or is the problem lessened/removed because of what he's doing procedurally? If so, I'm curious as to why?

Issues

1) This doesn't capture the Journey mechanics/ethos of Dungeon World/Perilous Wilds (and the aesthetic of Torchbearer). That is fundamentally necessary to what I'm trying to do here. This looks more like Cortex+ Fantasy Hack (which is fine...great game...but not what I'm looking for at all).

2) With the above approach (while its a good approach), there is a lessening/subtraction of breadth of decision-points, their individual heft, and their interactions with each other means considerably less tactical & stategic overhead, opportunities for "thematic differentiation in expression of PCs" (via the decision-point > actions/advancement deployment > outcomes loop), and potentially consequential snowballing in the Journey phase of play.

I don't want less of any of that. I want the Journey phase of play to be more chunky, more consequential, more fun, and more Dungeon World/Torchbearer-ey than what would be instantiated in Harper's hack above.


Thoughts on any/all of that would be appreciated. Its a lot of stuff and you've both already contributed a lot so if you want to just give it a pass, no worries! If nothing else, I'm basically just laying out my thoughts on design here and that is productive for me even if no one interacts with it.
 

AVENGERS CLAIM MAP

This will be the Crew I'm working up for Playtest. Used some of Sean Nittner's awesome Vigilante stuff .

I'll work on the actual Crew and 3 Playbooks later.

AVENGERS CLAIM MAP.jpg
 

Fenris-77

Small God of the Dozens
Supporter
Here's my issue with circles and wises, as concisely as I can manage. In Torchbearer every character gets circles and wises in addition to their stats and abilities. In your conception where Lore and Consort stand in for those two things, characters can choose to have mechanical heft there, but only instead of other stats. You don't get a lot of dots to assign, nor a ton of stress to spend, so taking a zero in those isn't awful, but it's really not the same as Torchbearer where those two mechanics don't impact you starting stats or proficiency on other areas at all.

I also have some doubts about the relative usefulness of Consort specifically in the Adventure phase, as opposed to Blades scores, given that genre conventions usually call for more combat and exploration and less social interaction there. That's a somewhat separate issue though.
 

Here's my issue with circles and wises, as concisely as I can manage. In Torchbearer every character gets circles and wises in addition to their stats and abilities. In your conception where Lore and Consort stand in for those two things, characters can choose to have mechanical heft there, but only instead of other stats. You don't get a lot of dots to assign, nor a ton of stress to spend, so taking a zero in those isn't awful, but it's really not the same as Torchbearer where those two mechanics don't impact you starting stats or proficiency on other areas at all.

I also have some doubts about the relative usefulness of Consort specifically in the Adventure phase, as opposed to Blades scores, given that genre conventions usually call for more combat and exploration and less social interaction there. That's a somewhat separate issue though.

Couple thoughts here:

1) I wouldn't look at the action resolution model for the game through the Torchbearer lens. Torchbearer is only in play here as (a) aspects of facets of action resolution in DW are TB inspired, (b) the structure of play, (c) aspects of the aesthetic of play.

2) If PC balance is a concern (either PC to PC or PC to obstacle), I wouldn't worry about that. On the former, DW does a great job with PC to PC balance (even with tight archetypes), the PC build model is going to hew toward DW (with multiple Advancements at the outset of play, rather than just the one in Blades), and some instantiation of Gambits will be in play.

3) While the general expectation is Wizards will be Spouting Lore more than other classes and Bards/Rogues will be calling upon aid from Relationships more than other classes (because thematic potency and thematic niche are a feature, not a bug here), every other playbook (as mentioned above) will likely have some instantiation of Circles-ish and/or Wise-ish stuff (within their thematic niche) in their Playbook Advancements (as mentioned in the above post).

4) I wouldn't underestimate Consort in the wild. Parleying with creatures (animals, bandits, raiders, even mythical creatures) is often going to be a feature of conflicts in the wild. Consort or Discern would be the two orthodox social openers to establish rapport/suss out "what makes this person/thing tick" for a Sway power play later with leverage (and therefore Potency and therefore Improved Effect).

Or Rangers calling upon animals of the forest. Or Rogues convincing a group of highwaymen to look the other way...or Paladin's converting those same highwaymen from their path. Or the Wizard "talking magic shop" with the evil necromancer so they'll give up a secret or so someone can get the drop on them. Etc.
 

Some of that is where I was thinking with the Doom angle. There’s a weird west hack called A Fistful of Darkness. Instead of Heat/Wanted it has Doom and then the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse!

So doing something a little different may be in order to evoke the flavor/genre you’re going for. But any changes have to be considered against disrupting the tight interaction of all of Blades’ different parts.

My last iteration is something kindred with what you have here. What did you think about it?

So I entirely missed the bit about Folktale being an analog for Rep. Until I noticed it, I was thinking Doom could maybe be both Heat and Rep.

Is that feasible?

Essentially, this would connect Tier to Legend. Which when you think about it, it makes sense.

If players can spend Legend the same way that they spend Rep in Blades to have extra DT Activities, that gives them the ability to avoid Doom if they want. But it would be at the expense of going up in Tier. Seems like some potentially interesting decision points.

Again, just spitballing.

So, this would be an alternative to the model I presented above.

Going with something like this might be systemitized where (a) Folklore and Legend are on the same 12 point gauge and (b) Folklore fills from left to right and Legend the opposite. (c) Legend basically blocks you from Tiering up because of that so the Company has to spend Legend to have proportionately (more Legend spent at any one time = higher Magnitude event or Tier threat) dangerous event/threat manifest either against them directly or against a Friend/Ally or Positive Faction. These (d) "Doom Adventures" wouldn't give Coin or Folklore as Payoff. They would remove Legend in proportion to the Adventure (= to what Coin would have been).

This (i) would give the players more control of the firehose of adversity that Doom is (when and to what degree it manifests) and (ii) incentivize them to manage it so they can Tier up.

It needs to be punitive though and I don't want it to be formulaic in the management (eg its always strategically best to alternate between a chosen Adventure and a "Doom Adventure")

Thoughts? You think that is better/worse/just different than my conception a few posts above?
 

THE FIGHTER

Starting Actions
: Skirmish * 2, Command * 1


Dangerous Friends/Allies:

Gen - Thrifty caravan master
Miah - War heroine turned union leader
Glakrolla - Hobgoblin queen and tip of the spear
Landry - Former partner
Fasgarron - Ascetic beyond the wall
Four-finger Jack - Physicker from the war


Starting Abilities:

Which Weapon is Yours? All of them...: All weapons are fine in your hands. You get 2 special armor for weapons. You may expend your special armor to perform an uncanny feat of accuracy, prowess, or speed with a weapon. Take +1 Effect on any attack or special maneuver (disarm, trick shot, debilitate, covering fire, terrify, slip and move).

Battle Captain: Take +1d when you lead a group combat action. Also, you can suffer only 1 stress from any failed rolls.

Hoplite: Armor and shields you're wearing count as 1 less weight and are considered fine.


Advancement Abilities:

Made of Iron:
You get 2 special armor to reduce any physical Harm or to push yourself on a physical action.

I've Got Your Back: When you Protect a teammate, take +1d to your resistance roll. If an ally needs getting out of a spot (caught from a fall, pulled out of a whirlpool, parley gone bad), take 1 Stress and you're there. Then take +1d for an Action or a Setup action.

Born of the Crucible: When you accept Harm rather than resisting it, clear 2 Stress. When you close to melee with an enemy who has harmed you, they falter, hesitate, or flinch.

Thousand Yard Stare: Before weapons are drawn, you may lock eyes with someone, forcing them to hesitate. Both of you know that you can interrupt whatever they do next. Take Controlled position for your next action against them.

Hordebreaker: In close combat, you are equal in Scale to a small gang.

Weapon of a Hundred Kills: One of your weapons has ended dozens upon dozens of lives. Their souls left something behind on the blade/head/tip/haft/guard/pommel of your weapon. Name the weapon. When you Push to Discern or Illuminate while its in your hands, it only costs 1 Stress and your GM will always tell you something interesting about your present situation.

Friends on the Watch: Take +1d when you Gather Information with members of any Town Watch. You and your allies gain Potency when acting on the answer.

Get Back on the Horse: You recover from Harm faster. Permanently fill in one of your Healing Clock segments. Take +1d to healing treatment rolls.

Muleblooded: Increase your Light Load to 5-6, your Normal Load to 7-8, and your Heavy Load to 9.

Bend Bars, Lift Gates: Freakish athlete. Take +1 Effect when you perform a feat of strength or athletic prowess.


Unique Equipment:

Fine Scale Armor - 2 Load
Fine Leather Armor - 0 Load
Fine Round Shield - 1 Load
Fine Halberd or Spear (Reach) - 2 Load
Fine Heavy Weapon (Close, Forceful) - 2 Load
Fine Hand Weapon (Close, Hand) - 1 Load
Fine Longbow (Far) and Ammo - 2 Load - * * (Ammo)
Fine Throwing Knives (Near) - 1 Load - * * * (Ammo)
Sigil of the Legion - 0 Load
Drinking Horn or Warning Horn - 0 Load
(1 Coin) Adventuring Gear (crowbar, ropes/pitons/chalk/harness/clips, torches, winter cloak) - 2 Load * * * (Uses)
(1 Coin) Healing Potion - 0 Load (Take 1 Stress for immediate Resistance Roll to Harm and +1d)
(1 Coin) Camp Supplies - 2 Load * * * (Uses)
 
Last edited:

AVENGERS (COMPANY)


XP Trigger


When you play Avengers, you earn xp when you mete out justice on the wicked, deliver the downtrodden from their plight, or make the powerful face their exploitation or indifference.


Hunting Grounds

The farms beyond the wall
The underclass shanty town
The mines and crossroads of the deep wild
The seas (grass or water) where the raiders plunder


Favored Adventure Type

Protect the Meek
Right a Wrong
Bring Corruption to Light
Put an End to a Threat to the People


Starting Upgrades

Training: Body
Cohort: Expert, type Skulk (a Guide or a member of The Watch)


Contacts

Pimeon: Halfling sneak-thief whose ear is always to the ground.
Walker: Double agent crime boss.
Creed: Retired pit-fighter turned trainer.
Adralei: Elven ranger who lives beyond the wall.
Dunderbrek: Dwarven mining foreman.
Ukogak: Half-orc ranch hand and caravan guard.


Avengers Upgrades

Avengers Rigging
: You get 2 free load worth of weapon or gear items.

Unflinching: Your Tier is effectively +1 during any Doom where the meek or the downtrodden are being preyed upon.

Irregulars: Experts gain +1d to Gather Information.

Dedicated: Experts are also Toughs.

Hardened: Each PC gets +1 Trauma box. This costs three upgrades to unlock, not just one. This may bring a PC with 4 trauma back into play if you wish.


Avengers Special Abilities

As Good as your Word
: You may spend Folklore as Coin in downtime actions. Avengers gain Obligation as a second Vice.

Outside the Law: Each PC may add +1 action rating to Hunt, Prowl, or Command (up to a max rating of 3).

Moral Compass: Each PC gains an additional xp trigger: You fulfilled a promise at a cost to you or the crew.

All for One: During downtime one of your contacts or cohorts may take a downtime action to acquire an asset, reduce heat, or recover.

One for All: Spend one Folklore and describe how one of your contacts puts themself in danger to help you. Everyone in your crew gets one dot in an action your contact is skilled in for this Adventure.

Patron: When you advance your Tier, it costs half the coin it normally would. Who is your patron? Why do they help you?

Alpha's Nemesis: When you use Assault or Slay plans against a higher Tier faction, your Tier counts as +1.

The Man in the Chair: You have a quartermaster. Name him/her. Your quartermaster supplies the crew with extra Supply and Gear. Before each Adventure, roll Tier. 1/3 = 1, 4/5 = 2, 6 = 3 free Supply boxes to distribute to the Company for an Adventure in the wild or free Adventuring Gear boxes for an Adventure in Town.
 
Last edited:

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top