• 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


log in or register to remove this ad


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



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?

It is a bit different, and I have to say I like the tug of war nature of Legend and Folktale being sides of the same track. I think it does incentivize players to keep their Legend managed so that they can tier up, or to let it build if they need to focus on other things. Potential for some interesting decisions there. Would this approach remove the Doom state that is similar to being at war that you described in your previous post? What would trigger a "Doom adventure" as you describe it here? If the entire 12 track filled with Legend?

What happens when Folktale and Legend meet on the track? It sounds like Folktale would halt; would Legend as well? Or would it overtake the Folktale and continue accruing?

I kind of like this idea if you can get it to work. I'm not crazy on the names of Folktale and Legend in this context (they seem similar enough so that having them in opposition seems odd) but that may just be my preference.
 


It is a bit different, and I have to say I like the tug of war nature of Legend and Folktale being sides of the same track. I think it does incentivize players to keep their Legend managed so that they can tier up, or to let it build if they need to focus on other things. Potential for some interesting decisions there. Would this approach remove the Doom state that is similar to being at war that you described in your previous post? What would trigger a "Doom adventure" as you describe it here? If the entire 12 track filled with Legend?

What happens when Folktale and Legend meet on the track? It sounds like Folktale would halt; would Legend as well? Or would it overtake the Folktale and continue accruing?

I kind of like this idea if you can get it to work. I'm not crazy on the names of Folktale and Legend in this context (they seem similar enough so that having them in opposition seems odd) but that may just be my preference.

I'm not married to any of Folklore, Legend, or Doom.

In the iteration being imagined above, the loop would be like this (for this instance, let's sub Legend for Folklore - so Rep - and sub Doom for Legend - so Heat).

1) The Company has undergone the play loop enough such that they are now at 7 Legend and 5 Doom.

2) They're "stuck." They can't gain more Legend because of the Legend - Doom "traffic jam."

3) The only way they can increase Legend, and therefore Tier up, is to remove the Doom.

4) However, the're only Tier 2. The odds that they could handle either a Magnitude 5 Event or a Tier 5 Faction/Front (Legend on the guage/meter = the Magnitude/Tier of the threat) is extraordinarily remote.

5) Therefore, they're going to elect to go on a Doom Adventure against a Magnitude/Tier 3 Threat and then a 2nd one after that (in the next play loop) against a Magnitude/Tier 2 Threat.

6) Doom Adventures would be against their selected opposition that they selected at the beginning of play (see the first page).

7) Payoff in Doom Adventures would sub Coin for subtracting Doom (everything else would stay the same in Payoff).


Make sense?
 

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

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

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



6) Doom Adventures would be against their selected opposition that they selected at the beginning of play (see the first page).

7) Payoff in Doom Adventures would sub Coin for subtracting Doom (everything else would stay the same in Payoff).

And the amount of Doom paid off would be equal to the threat? so the Magnitude/Tier 3 threat would reduce 3 Doom?

Other than that question, yes, I think that makes sense and looks good!
 

Does that kind of thinking not strike you as a little too meta?
Nothing strikes me as too meta!

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

* Your enemies are on the move.

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

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

And the amount of Doom paid off would be equal to the threat? so the Magnitude/Tier 3 threat would reduce 3 Doom?

Other than that question, yes, I think that makes sense and looks good!

That's right.
 

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

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

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

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

Batman = Company

Commissioner Gordon = Cohort on the Watch

Alfred/Lucius Fox = Quartermaster
 

Fenris-77

Small God of the Dozens
Supporter
Nothing strikes me as too meta!

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

* Your enemies are on the move.

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fenris-77

Small God of the Dozens
Supporter
So are we at the point where you like this conceptual framework better than the initial one (which is basically reskinned Blades 1:1 w/ Quest subbed for Incarceration)?
I don't know about better. I think I would want to see each in action in short playtest. Take the same set of inciting events with fallout X, and then use each set of mechanics to adjudicate and push it forward. See how each feels, ideally from both sides of the screen.
 



Fenris-77

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

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

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

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

Fenris-77

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

But think of the Mines of Moria as portrayed in the films......you could totally pull that off with FitD mechanics. It's more about presenting it in a cinematic way with challenges that fit the theme, rather than some kind of exploration simulation.
I think for larger spaces you want to do some very discrete framing and gating. I'd agree that standard mega-dungeon play isn't ideal, or even desirable though. I think that I'd probably include some examples and advice for how to frame larger delves in a way that works for FitD play. I think a lot of GMs, even Blades-savvy ones, might fall back on D&D habits for delves and that's a bad idea IMO.

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

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

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top