Age of Blood – Public Playtest v0.6

10 thoughts on “Age of Blood – Public Playtest v0.6”

1. I couldn’t show my promo image at the same time as a Google drive link, so here!

   https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/KWr6EsNKApNydIMqb8PDKSLEstDkg7rik3hldlfXxHXr67q9fQyaR_iBwyZ0L5eeXETZN6UiGzlwCWVU4ip0OeyTKZ4J7M9xJqg=s0

2. Looks very cool and great set of resources!

3. This is awesome! Have been wanting to run Blades for a group, and i was originally thinking of mashing vanilla with Against Darkness, but this looks like it will fit the bill nicely.

4. Jess Gulbranson Glad to hear you find it interesting, if you do end up running AoB please let me know how it goes!

5. Will do. I also have a mysterious campaign framework thing that I’ll be playtesting, the results should be interesting. Bwahaha!

6. Scanning through this now. I can’t promise an in-depth analysis or playtesting, but your work is definitely interesting and shows a lot of effort!

7. Thanks for the kind words!

8. Charles Simon All right, I went ahead and spent more time reading then I probably should have…not so much because your material is not good, but rather that time is a commodity in short supply in my life these days. Dang those kids!

   My initial impression thus far is very positive. There is a lot of work put into this, and quite a bit of it is well written so as to appeal to those who have an attachment to the written word. A bit of art in the finished product should serve to funnel in those who need a bit of visual enticement to get started. Obviously, there is still a need for an editor to review the work, but I like where you are going with this and the quality is there, in my humble opinion.

   Now to get into the grit of what I liked, and found potentially useful. Playbooks: These were evocative and fairly well-written. Especially for a new player, these were great. I would not necessarily have replicated your work, but I could see the common design philosphy behind each PB and how it tied together with its partner and the rest of the game. The fact that it boils down to four fundamental archetypes is not lost on me.

   Travel and expeditions: While perhaps still in need of further development, I found this section to be very interesting and potentially useful. For a West Marches campaign, or one just emulating the format, it strikes me as a great starting point and an excellent iteration on the Engagement roll for getting the adventure started. The only way it could really be improved would be to provide more support for a GM, possibly in terms of random encounters, mishaps or complications. Given that such things are likely heavily setting dependent, I am not sure that providing those things is worth the effort, as it would likely never be more then a starting point for most campaigns anyway.

   Now for my feedback in terms of what I believe could be improved: The Town. To me, your inspiration as a West Marches game is crystal clear, and in fact, your hack is currently the only one i would consider using as a basis for such a campaign using the FitD system. And on the whole, the Town replacing the crew sheet was a great idea. The problem, as I see it, is that the Town as a playbook is too restrictive for a WM sort of game.

   I find it difficult to explain why, exactly, I feel the current iteration would not be best suited to a WM style of game. I think the core of it is that it reduces player agency in this arena. Essentially, a number of players will potentially benefit from upgrades and advancements that they never earned and have no sense of ownership of.

   Ideally, I would prefer you make a choice on how you want to present your game: To a standard, but possibly extended group? Go with a modified crew format from BitD, taking the larger size into account. For a true WM game with a dozen or more players? Take the town aspect and disperse it into the factions, potentially making a GM and meta game turn similar to the Faction turn in Stars Without Numbers. Perhaps players who make their own faction or earn leadership status in a faction could participate in this faction turn in some way. Whatever the case, the goal should be to connect the players as tightly as possible to the communcal setting, and the method of achieving that is heavily reliant on the number of players you expect and the type of game you are making.

   In any event, you have clearly put a lot of work into this hack, and the quality shines through the rough patches. Double thumbs up from this reader!

9. Thanks a ton for the feedback!

   It’s very interesting that you were put in the mindset of a WM-like “ensemble” playerbase while reading, though I can certainly understand how that would intuitively be suggested because I use the geopolitical idea of a “March” as well in my setting… I haven’t tested a game like that but it would certainly be an interesting experiment. Right now the intention is very much for AoB to comfortably work within a 3-5 player table using a mostly-recurring cast of central PCs, about the same as Blades in the Dark is often run. Shadows, the new element replacing Traumas, also benefit from a core cast whose evolving story is explored in detail.

   I think that the emphasis on action roll negotiation (no such thing as a simple “I roll to Melee Attack”) and character sheet plot elements makes Forged in the Dark actually a bit rougher than a system like DnD for a West Marches-style game, though I’m genuinely curious what such a system would look like.

10. I see your point, and understand where you are coming from. The reason I even brought up the WM type of game is that no other hack seems to be filling that niche. Additionally, I am currently strongly considering putting together that kind of game myself via Roll20. Given that BitD is possibly one of the best games I have ever used online, it seemed only natural to see if any hacks were available catering to that game style.

    In its current iteration, AoB seems like a more grimdark/traditional emulater, as opposed to the more gonzo Blades Against Darkness (although, that hack looks quite interesting as well). But a large number of elements seem ripe for conversion or use in a WM sort of system. Certainly, if I was to hack together such a system myself using FitD, AoB would be my first stop.

    Without WM considerations, I would probably consider refining the town somewhat. Even for an extended play group, the town might not be the most interesting way to create a communal space. Again, I would suggest synergizing the crew types from BitD with your excellent Town foundation and giving that over to your players. That way your town factions can provide some potential friction or pushback, and your players can more readily take ownership of that aspect of the game. Conversely, play up the players’ leadership role or other connection to the town…make them not just care a little, but potentially responsible for the death or success of the people in it.

    …actually, you did a pretty good job of that already, so…carry on?

    I do agree that the basic functions of BitD do not seem to lend themselves to WM. Certainly I am not sold on the system myself, and will likely run such a campaign with Symbaroum, Shadows of the Demon Lord or the White Box campaign box with additional material tacked on. But…at the core of the WM experience are players taking their characters into danger, facing risks and (hopefully) returning with the spoils. In a lot of ways, BitD has that exact same driving force as its core experience…

Comments are closed.