Wayfarers of Emberreach (or WoE, as I'll refer to it going forward) is a hack of the Vagabonds of Dyfed role-playing game -- which is itself built on the chassis of World of Dungeons and a few other games.
For those not already aware: World of Dungeons, written by John Harper and published in 2012, is a distillation of the Dungeon World RPG. All of Dungeon World's many moves are boiled down to one core "move" set up around the Powered by the Apocalypse (PbtA) engine's resolution system (roll 2d6 and add a modifier; 6- = fail with a complication; 7-9 = succeed with a complication; 10+ = succeed). Rather than providing specific outcomes and consequences prescribed by each move, World of Dungeons leaves the outcome for its core roll to the GM, who reads the scene and narrates a likely outcome based on the roll result. It's highly interpretive. It also puts primary focus on narrative by generating a lot of scene complications from that core mechanic.
VoD centers its dice resolution around that same core concept; the GM does a lot of interpreting based on the situation. But, while World of Dungeons is extremely minimal in terms of rules, VoD builds itself out with more rules and procedures for OSR-style play. As mentioned above, VoD seeks to take the OSR's gritty, procedural approach and integrate it with World of Dungeons/PbtA narrative focus. A simple, interpretive core with some rules for OSR elements built around it (e.g., hirelings, random encounters, gear, sort-of-classes, etc.). It also adds some downtime procedures inspired by Blades in the Dark. One thing that was truly novel for me was its replacing attribute scores with Traits, six short statements that describe specific aspects of the character. For each Trait that is relevant to a situation requiring a roll, you either add +1 or subtract -1 from the roll, depending on the nature of the Trait. I understand that this concept was pulled from City of Mists, published by Son of Oak Game Studio, and is also the core character concept for their Legend in the Mist RPG. VoD also has character abilities, called Techniques, that are chosen a la carte -- so taking a class-build approach was optional, but not required.
When I found this game, it really hooked me on several levels:
- I've long been a fan of both OSR and narrative-focused RPGs. I feel they have more shared commonalities than differences (nothing new here; a lot has been blogally written and podcastically discussed about the overlap between these two game styles). I've played and run OSR games (AD&D, Old-School Essentials, The Black Hack, and others) and PbtA games (World of Dungeons, Streets of Marienburg, The Sprawl), so I knew the respective fields. And this RPG aimed for the best of both worlds.
- VoD supported player input while still privileging the GM with more discretionary authority.
- The idea of Traits really won me over. Static attributes suddenly felt restrictive and overly broad in their application. Traits brought nuance; each situation may or may not make them important. What helps you when dealing with one NPC might hinder you when dealing with another.
- I loved Techniques and how easy it could be to create new ones with players.
- I also really liked the book layout and graphic design.
I thought to myself, "This is it. This might be my go-to fantasy RPG." Case closed?
Except that I couldn't close the case. When I tried to shut and latch it, I found some of the stuff inside was sticking out, getting caught in the hinges and sticking out the sides in such a way that the halves couldn't contact and zip. It was, if I was being honest, messily packed.
I want to restate here: I really liked this game! But I also had to be honest with myself that it felt...underbaked. Not fully proofed. The ideas were all there, but somehow the execution didn't gel like I felt it could. Some rules were unclear. And others seemed to contradict what was unclearly stated in earlier instances. Some ideas were very generalized and clearly intended to be universally applicable to any campaign setting; other ideas were surprisingly specific. (I'm looking at you, Magic-Generating Isometric Crystals.) A few times, it took an optional "toolkit" approach to rules, which is typically fine—but, when paired with the abovementioned lack of clarity, the water quickly muddied. Especially when examples drew on other ambiguous rules without clarifying. (I'm looking at you here, Two Methods of Damage.) Overall, the rulebook felt like an incredibly solid first draft that needed some additional playtesting and refinement, and then a thorough rewrite and editing pass.
To be fair, on the DriveThruRPG page, Dutter describes the game's presentation as "a barebones, compact way" and that "the spirit of the game will come naturally...through its play." That may be, but I think I prefer just a little bit more structure in my rules. But the game was almost there! I decided to try it out, and ran an adventure.
The setting I used was a homemade one I had been developing, called Emberreach. (I'll discuss the setting itself in a later post.) Because I was using procedures for collaborative worldbuilding and some details were set, I knew I'd be ditching a few VoD rules outright (so long, magic crystals!), but kept most of the rest intact. In the end, I'd used the core mechanics, the character rules, and a few of the ancillary rules, but also felt myself wanting structure (or at least clearer purpose) in other places that the game didn't provide. I started to modify the game with a house rules document, adding on a few custom procedures, GMing with the VoD book and this other doc.
This has proven a historically slippery slope for RPGs, and by the time I finished a short campaign, I'd decided that I needed something more. So I set out to write a hack of VoD, integrating all of the new rules I'd designed, as well as improved(?) versions of existing rules, with text rewritten for clarity. Once it was drafted, I took it into Affinity Publisher and created a new rulebook the game.
This is also the reason why I won't be releasing this hack on itch.io or other platforms. While I rewrote the majority of the game text, there are some portions that I just kept as they were—in particular, many of the Techniques. Also, I adopted some moves written for Dungeon World classes and ported them in as new Techniques. In short, too many cribbed ideas. I just don't have the time and bandwidth to do that kind of revision. So it'll remain a personal project. But I can hash out the concepts and procedures that I feel I improved. Which I will do. Next.
One last thing. The name: Wayfarers of Emberreach. From the start, I felt that VoD had an awkward title. But I appreciated its subtle nod to World of Dungeons. I sketched out some other options, but nothing really jumped out at me. There are already a metric ton of indie RPGs that title themselves after every distinct term of art that crops up in fantasy RPGs. Few of them really bind themselves meaningfully to those titles; you could switch the names around and I'm not convinced it wouldn't have much impact. (I'm overstating a bit. I get it: it's a label to easily differentiate your game from the rest.) So, in the end, I kept the naming pattern. I was originally going to call it Vagabonds of Emberreach, but then thought of the old Burl Ives album, Return of the Wayfaring Stranger, which was an admittedly evocative title. Looking up the word, I saw that a "wayfarer" was "a traveler, especially someone who travels on foot," which seemed like a good and apt description of your typical fantasy adventurer. Thus was Wayfarers of Emberreach born.
Next time, I'll spend some time discussing Emberreach itself, the homemade setting for the game, and why it became important to me to weave the game rules and the world together.
No comments:
Post a Comment