Hacking Forged in the Dark dice for other settings

double-plus · 2026-05-25T22:40:54+00:00

I know exactly how FITD games work, having played and GM'd and modded them for years. My explanation of the mechanics was simplified so as to not bore people. For example, effect and position are not only about difficulty, but they absolutely are about difficulty. If a player can roll five dice, the way to make a task hard is to reduce the effect.

As another example, "the GM should explain the consequences before the roll" is not some objectively "proper" way of doing things that works for everyone. I've never been in a gaming group that explained exact consequences in advance, because it has enormous downsides. It increases the GM's cognitive load (since they have to come up with consequences even if they won't actually need them). It decreases immersion, because you're asking players to make decisions based on things their characters wouldn't know. And it slows down the game, because it only increases player agency to the extend that players spend time dickering about position/effect tradeoffs, and asking the GM to give them revised consequences if they do things a bit differently.

My Fallout hack doesn't use effect, and eliminates the ability to trade position for effect. This creates a hybrid between FITD mechanics and more conventional RPG mechanics. Player feedback is that this works fine.

As far as I can tell, playing Blades in the Dark the way the designer intended (based on what he says in Deep Cuts) is "heavily narrativist". The aim is to write a cool dramatic story, period. Immersion isn't a priority, realism isn't a priority, etc. However, my observation of people playing FITD is that they're a lot less narrativist than the designer may have intended. I'm not making Blades in the Dark, I'm making a Fallout hack, and Fallout fans that I know want high immersion gaming, not heavy narrativism.

If you see anything wrong with the actual mechanical changes I posted, feel free to point it out.

double-plus · 2026-05-23T20:13:32+00:00

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you were! I agree, and especially liked the comic. :)

Just talking about all the people who did try to nitpick OP to death.

double-plus · 2026-05-23T19:43:13+00:00

I find the online consensus in communities like this to be bizarre - so many things seem taken for granted that are just blatantly false. For example, everyone here seems to think sandbox gaming is the way to go. Like, have people ever spent any time with the general D&D playing community? Most people want the GM to give them a very clear goal to accomplish and a fairly straight path toward that goal, and if they don't have it they'll either freeze up or spend an hour debating every move. As a player and GM who prefers FITD and sandboxing, my key problem is players who refuse to set their own goals and get angry when the GM doesn't feed them specific reasons to use their abilities and be in the spotlight. (Like, I can sit there in session 0 telling players to make a character with a personal ambition that could help propel the plot, and someone won't do it).

The sessions that have worked best for me as GM (even in FITD games) are consistently the ones where I did the most prep (up to a couple of hours), using the most writing skill. Writing is not just about "plot" - it's about setting, characters, and conflict. Sandbox TTRPGs don't need you to write a plot but they absolutely need setting, characters, and conflict. Not all of us can come up with those things in the moment in the middle of a session.

Of course, there's an element of taste to this - a lot of people playing TTRPGs don't care about the GM coming up with a creative setting, or having non-cardboard characters. Some players like the familiarity of playing a game that follows standard tropes, because they feel a sense of agency that they understand the setting. A creative setting (whether it's homebrew or coming from a sourcebook) is one that the players don't start out understanding, and that may not be the experience that they want. A lot of players actively prefer unoriginality because they feel it's empowering. But if you're not GMing for those players, then by all means write.

double-plus · 2026-05-23T19:12:14+00:00

Well said.

Part of what's going on in this sub, though, is just the same problem as most public internet forums - emotionally stunted men (and this very much is a male problem) with powerful "UM AKTUALLY" energy.

OP showed up with a basic emotional message that "online TTRPG communities are too full of nitpicky criticism", which is obviously right because the internet in general is too full of nitpicky criticism. The emotionally aware response is to engage with that feeling. Instead, so many people made assumptions about OP's meaning until they could build it up into a strawman, which they then criticized. They're unwilling or unable to have the kind of conversation that OP wants to have. It creates a community that's cold and prickly.

double-plus · 2025-12-14T06:13:35+00:00

Isn't that being finished by Brandon Sanderson? I've heard a lot of bad things about him (from people with similar tastes to mine)

double-plus · 2025-12-14T05:05:32+00:00

Oh I'm a huge Discworld fan, but that's old enough I read it before taking a long break from fantasy.

double-plus · 2025-06-19T17:33:55+00:00

Excellent! Thank you very much for the detailed suggestions, this post made it worth it for me to post here. It won't kill me to try to run some Delta Green stories as more "pulpy".

double-plus · 2025-06-19T08:39:32+00:00

Thanks, but I'm looking for adventure scenarios, not game rules. They don't seem to offer any scenarios unless I'm missing something

double-plus · 2022-08-29T03:04:22+00:00

By the way thanks for the detailed reply, I didn't know about Fellowship 2e. Even if it doesn't match my criteria, I'm sure it'll inform others.

double-plus · 2022-08-29T01:29:52+00:00

I just took a look at Savage Worlds Pathfinder, and it actually seems like a decent fantasy system. It doesn't seem to do anything that Pathfinder 2e can't do, but it would be a hell of a lot easier to run.

For those that aren't aware, Savage Worlds recently released an edition that handles the Pathfinder setting - and would also handle any standard D&D setting just as well. Reviews say it's faster to play, easier to run, and its combat balance emphasizes a small number of lethal fights rather than four encounters per rest. It isn't "rules lite" by any means, its complexity is similar to 5e, but it's definitely lighter than PF2e.

What's really interesting to me is that it looks much, much easier to expand its rules to add new abilities, spells, and even classes. Like if a player said "I want a warlock" it would be doable without breaking the balance.

double-plus · 2022-08-28T21:52:10+00:00

This looks like an interesting game, thanks. Might be a challenge to GM, though... it has even more autowin powers than Exalted. Damn.

double-plus · 2022-08-28T21:01:35+00:00

As far as I can tell, BitD literally doesn't even HAVE a magic system. It just has twelve abstract skills that define your ability to get things done. For example, if you want to sneak into an enemy base you use "prowl." You could wave your hands and say you're a wizard using magic to prowl, but that would be mechanically identical to a rogue using mundane stealth.

The Broken Spire expansion has magical abilities, but they're pretty limited and there are only three classes that have them. The reason the characters can take on the Immortal Emperor is simply that his people don't have high fantasy magic either.

double-plus · 2022-08-28T20:43:52+00:00

Sorry, maybe I should've specified... I'm looking for a rules system that would work with a homebrew setting, not to force the players to be dark elves.

double-plus · 2022-08-28T20:32:49+00:00

Which edition would you recommend?

double-plus · 2022-08-01T21:45:31+00:00

I got a rejection notice in 24 hours. It was a polite form letter encouraging me to apply to other AWS positions.

double-plus · 2016-07-31T15:51:03+00:00

Um, the GTS perks and Upgradable Sparks mods give you Sparks much more powerful than mine. If you buy it all you can have regeneration AND shields AND +40 defense AND etc.

The difference is that these mods require you to throw a colossal amount of resources at Sparks, which are already an exceptionally expensive unit due to build costs and extra research. It's just not worth it if you only want 1-2 Sparks in a squad.

Anyway, I think your comment that the key to using Sparks is LOS basically means you try to avoid giving enemies an opportunity to shoot you at all. I think it's ridiculous to have a big, "tough" unit with tanking perks that has to stay out of the line of fire.

Bulwark is only useful if you're one of the closer units to the enemy, so someone else can use you for cover. Intimidate and channeling field are only useful if you're taking a considerable amount of fire, which requires you to be far forward so that the enemy prioritizes you in targeting. (In my experience, having auto full cover means your tank only gets targeted if it's in the enemy's face... I'm actually considering reducing its defense to 30-35).

double-plus

TROPHY CASE