To people involved in long-running DW games:

To people involved in long-running DW games:

To people involved in long-running DW games:

How often are you seeing Bonds resolve in play? It seems to me that too infrequent and they’re more of an RP aid than a mechanical tool, but too frequent and the game feels more like Interpersonal Relationship World, especially in large parties.

So, some real-world anecdata would be helpful to me, if you’d all be so kind.

16 thoughts on “To people involved in long-running DW games:”

  1. Eric, I’m with you about that. My players can’t feel right changing bond almost every played session. C’mon, if you have “I love AMON, he’s a charming person. I should do something good for him”, it can happen you had no right chances to do something good for him in that session… And maybe in the subsequent too. Also, if AMON does nothing extreme, you have no reason to change the bond with “AMON offended me, he should die soon” or “AMON is supercharming, I have to marry him soon”.

    So, in my campaigns often players don’t change bonds for a while. Of course, if there is a good reason, they add, change or remove them. Simply, they don’t feel the urge to do that.

  2. I agree that resolving bonds can be difficult, given certain bonds and situations. If someone is having difficulty resolving a bond, one option is to allow a player to tell the story of how the bond came to be. I would allow that to “resolve” the bond.

  3. Resolve can also mean “no longer relevant.”

    “I know I said I’d save Avon’s soul, but jeez, the guy’s a lost cause. I’m going to resolve that one and write a new one ‘I must make amends for Avon’s wrongdoing,’ that alright with you?”

  4. Changing a bond doesn’t have to be a paradigm shift!

    I usually let or encourage players to update a bond if it was referenced in play or if it could be slightly modified. Relationships aren’t static, they evolve. But neither do they regularly saw from one extreme to another.

    Let’s take “Avon is soft, I will make them hard like me”

    I’d get my players to look at Avon’s actions during the game, and ask the player with that bond what they think about the actions, and to modify the bond with those opinions. “Avon has potential, but we must work hard” or “Avon has much to do to prove themselves” “Avon proved they are brave, but they are still soft!”

    Using this method, it’s very rare for any of my players to not evolve or rewrite one of their bonds.

  5. I use the “Bond evolution” concept extensively. Relationships are always in a state of change. Sometimes my players Bonds will change just to reflect a current situation, “I trust Colwyn with mine and my sister’s life.” Which might become a growing frustration, “I can’t believe Colwyn seduced my sister!” This evolving might even impact other heroes, “I’m not sure I trust Verrick after what he did to Colwyn.”

  6. Every game. The players will force it and rationalize it if they have to. In one game each player had three bonds each, and resolved ALL of them by the end of the session. No bonds go unresolved.

    Otherwise, you’re just leaving XP on the table!

  7. When they are shoehorned just for the XP they feel dirty to me. This is the only aspect of bonds that rubs me the wrong way. Drives seem to fix this but also seem less likely to be resolved. In the end I guess all that really matters is that the bond/drive contributes something noteworthy to the fiction.

Comments are closed.