Someone in our gaming community has been running weekly Star War's games with different systems, switching the game & the characters after about 4 or 5 sessions. This allowed the group to explore different facets with slightly hacked gaming systems - that might be interesting with the Craft sequence as well? Using a hacked Monsterhearts game to play as junior associates in a necromancer firm, maybe? Or a Blades in the Dark game to take on a god at the behest of an undead sorcerer, or vice versa?
There's also lots of fun in grafting bits of one system onto another. Hacking the Planning and Engagement rules from Blades in the Dark into Fate, with "spend a Fate point to insert a flashback scene", is a great way to cut down on excessive planning in a gaming session.
I ran a Star Wars podrace once where I broke up the racing (which put the spotlight on one player character) by letting any other player spend a Fate point to introduce a flashback scene where the other characters could mess with the other racers. So the thief stole one racer's lucky dice from their vehicle, the face kept one racer partying until dawn, etc. Playing Feng Shui for years put me in the mindset of "GM as movie director" and Fate is a great system for supporting that.
Back in 2019 I playtested a game concept at Metatopia meant to run the “you have to serve somebody” aspect of the Craft setting, though it was ultimately more adjacent. One of the guys who played in the test mentioned having used gumshoe, pointing out that at heart, the Craft books are murder mysteries. And that does make me think that yeah, there’s no one answer-- there’s enough vectors to engage with that you might wanna use different systems for any given part. Me, I was interested in a world where you literally trade bits of soul for everything, and every part of who you are is (in the extreme case) negotiable.
I was using a resolution mechanic at the time that didn’t fit the premise, so it’s all back to the workshop for now!
Ah, brilliant! A post very much after my gamer heart.
Incidentally, it is Ruin of Angels that I am still a little obsessed with seeing played. In some ways, an interesting hack for that specific setup would be Spycraft, with its focus on missions -- the table is a crew of delvers, you prep for the mission, gather equipment, do the delve, debrief. I believe Blades does something similar, but haven't played it.
(As you might remember, Spycraft has the downside of taking 90+ minutes to gear up, but perhaps for the Craft sequence version one doesn't need *thousands* of pieces of equipment to sift through).
As for Craft sequence more generally, I totally see your point about how many different systems could be good for it. One other one I'd like to mention is the old school Shadowrun idiosyncrasy of deckers essentially playing their own hacking mini game from everyone else, and having Craftspeople do something similar. Of course, it's a bad idea to split the players in such an artificial way, and yet there may be something in this space to explore!
Gearing-up is my favorite element of the Blades-alike systems. It's really elegant! Each PC has a list of prospective equipment—an alchemist might have "reagents" or "poisons" or "explosive powder" for example. At the beginning of each mission every PC chooses, not equipment, but a "loadout" which gives them a number of gear slots. The more gear slots you take, the more obviously you're a murder-hobo loaded for murdering. During the mission, whenever you come up against an obstacle you want to circumvent using gear, you can 'spend' one of your gear slots to have that item with you.
The big problem with the Spycraft system, for me, was that the GM's often right there in the room during gear-up, and it's trivial to tweak a mission in a way that will outfox any prep, leaving players with a pile of useless gear. This way, players can problem solve on the fly, in response to GM intrusion.
Blades, though, requires a whole different player mindset. Rather than trying to make an airtight plan and then execute, it's built to let you start the mission with a handwavey scheme, and backfill all the airtight planning as the GM introduces obstacles. It's a bit hard to twist your brain around it if you're used to doing things the "normal" way, in chronological order. I'd love to give it a shot sometime, whenever you're up for playing.
Someone in our gaming community has been running weekly Star War's games with different systems, switching the game & the characters after about 4 or 5 sessions. This allowed the group to explore different facets with slightly hacked gaming systems - that might be interesting with the Craft sequence as well? Using a hacked Monsterhearts game to play as junior associates in a necromancer firm, maybe? Or a Blades in the Dark game to take on a god at the behest of an undead sorcerer, or vice versa?
I love that! It would be a great way to burn through my unplayed-systems shelf, too....
There's also lots of fun in grafting bits of one system onto another. Hacking the Planning and Engagement rules from Blades in the Dark into Fate, with "spend a Fate point to insert a flashback scene", is a great way to cut down on excessive planning in a gaming session.
I adore the Blades engagement/flashback structure. I want it in (almost) every game I play.
I ran a Star Wars podrace once where I broke up the racing (which put the spotlight on one player character) by letting any other player spend a Fate point to introduce a flashback scene where the other characters could mess with the other racers. So the thief stole one racer's lucky dice from their vehicle, the face kept one racer partying until dawn, etc. Playing Feng Shui for years put me in the mindset of "GM as movie director" and Fate is a great system for supporting that.
I love that! Blades' emphasis on setup actions as flashback scenes is one of those galaxy brain game design moments, IMO.
Back in 2019 I playtested a game concept at Metatopia meant to run the “you have to serve somebody” aspect of the Craft setting, though it was ultimately more adjacent. One of the guys who played in the test mentioned having used gumshoe, pointing out that at heart, the Craft books are murder mysteries. And that does make me think that yeah, there’s no one answer-- there’s enough vectors to engage with that you might wanna use different systems for any given part. Me, I was interested in a world where you literally trade bits of soul for everything, and every part of who you are is (in the extreme case) negotiable.
I was using a resolution mechanic at the time that didn’t fit the premise, so it’s all back to the workshop for now!
Tell me what you come up with!
Ah, brilliant! A post very much after my gamer heart.
Incidentally, it is Ruin of Angels that I am still a little obsessed with seeing played. In some ways, an interesting hack for that specific setup would be Spycraft, with its focus on missions -- the table is a crew of delvers, you prep for the mission, gather equipment, do the delve, debrief. I believe Blades does something similar, but haven't played it.
(As you might remember, Spycraft has the downside of taking 90+ minutes to gear up, but perhaps for the Craft sequence version one doesn't need *thousands* of pieces of equipment to sift through).
As for Craft sequence more generally, I totally see your point about how many different systems could be good for it. One other one I'd like to mention is the old school Shadowrun idiosyncrasy of deckers essentially playing their own hacking mini game from everyone else, and having Craftspeople do something similar. Of course, it's a bad idea to split the players in such an artificial way, and yet there may be something in this space to explore!
Gearing-up is my favorite element of the Blades-alike systems. It's really elegant! Each PC has a list of prospective equipment—an alchemist might have "reagents" or "poisons" or "explosive powder" for example. At the beginning of each mission every PC chooses, not equipment, but a "loadout" which gives them a number of gear slots. The more gear slots you take, the more obviously you're a murder-hobo loaded for murdering. During the mission, whenever you come up against an obstacle you want to circumvent using gear, you can 'spend' one of your gear slots to have that item with you.
The big problem with the Spycraft system, for me, was that the GM's often right there in the room during gear-up, and it's trivial to tweak a mission in a way that will outfox any prep, leaving players with a pile of useless gear. This way, players can problem solve on the fly, in response to GM intrusion.
Blades, though, requires a whole different player mindset. Rather than trying to make an airtight plan and then execute, it's built to let you start the mission with a handwavey scheme, and backfill all the airtight planning as the GM introduces obstacles. It's a bit hard to twist your brain around it if you're used to doing things the "normal" way, in chronological order. I'd love to give it a shot sometime, whenever you're up for playing.
Ooh I love that! Yes, let's play Blades sometime :)