Dungeons & Dragons, Fantasy, Fiasco, House Rules, OSR, Random Tables, RPG
I love Fiasco (by Bully Pulpit Games – if you haven’t checked it out, you should. It’s basically the opposite of the OSR games I play, which is 100% part of why I love it).
I also (obviously) love D&D.
I’m starting a new 3.5 D&D game in two weeks. A chunk of the groundwork is set already, but characters aren’t finalized. So yesterday I sent out word to the players to not set their character ideas in stone.
I’m taking a bit of NeoClassical Geek Revival in allowing them to spend their skill points and assign their feats as the game progresses with the caveat that they must all be established before the characters reach level 2.
But more importantly, and more topically, why not bring in some Fiasco to our D&D campaign setup? Well, one reason really… I want the group to work together, not to create a fiasco.
So, I’ve started working (with help from the two D&D-like Fiasco playsets) on a “playset” for my D&D character generation. One that is tuned not towards setting up a fiasco, but towards setting up a party of characters that may well work together as the game progresses. I’m using a pair of Fiasco playsets as a base to work from here – The Dungeon Delve and Dragon Slayers – but modifying them to suit less fiascos and more cooperation (and to suit a party of level 1 characters).
Today I present the first part of this chargen system – Relationships. Over the next week and a half I hope to be able to finish off Desires / Needs and Locations (I’m omitting Objects from this, as we’ll be handling birthrights differently and you know as well as I do that the players will focus on Objects if they have the choice since it gives them more stuff).
O'mac Dragonmore said:
Morning world. So you have the man’s perspective on this imitative. I am one of the soon to be players in this new campaign. Went first advised of this concept we appear as a group to be excited over building some cohesiveness to the group. Most of us revel in developing a good back story but in the past it has been individual and disjointed. I am looking forward to seeing how this develops.
As someone with ZERO knowledge of Fiasco (except that it exists) could you please elaborate a bit more on how this all work?
Dyson Logos said:
At the beginning of play, a pile of d6s are rolled (4d6 per player). Each player takes a turn picking one die and assigning it to something.
When it’s done, each player has to have a relationship with the player to the right and the player to the left. These relationships then can be linked to Needs, Places and Objects.
So, let’s say P1 picks the relationship of “6 – Magic” between him and P2. P2, P3 and P4 each get to pick a die for something (possibly the specific nature of the relationship in question) before P1 gets to pick again.
When all the dice have been assigned, the players sit down and figure out the specifics of the relationships.
Thanks, that’s nice and simple.
O'mac Dragonmore said:
So having a beer or two and a good imagination and back stories will evolve. I am liking it!
The Boulder said:
Family 1-6 doesn’t really work since it doesn’t actually define a relationship between two characters. You might try black sheep sibling/dutiful sibling relationship.
I’ve seen a couple of other takes on this:
Dyson Logos said:
Good point. Should be Black Sheep / Member in Good Standing
Role Play Craft said:
I own fiasco, but have been having a difficult time convincing my group to try it out. I guess the comparative lack of structure is a little daunting for some. I haven’t thought of adapting it’s rules to help out with my DnD games, though.
Thanks for the idea! I think this’ll be neat.
Pingback: Fiasco D&D – Desires & Needs | Dyson's Dodecahedron
Brennen Reece said:
This would be great for bonds in Dungeon World!
Pingback: D&D-Playset für Fiasco | Greifenklaue's Blog
Pingback: The Full Fiasco-Based D&D Starting Set | Dyson's Dodecahedron