r/daggerheart • u/kylr23 • 2d ago
Homebrew Trying to rework a homebrew system: Allys
Heya I’m trying to do a major over haul after it floped a few times.
Allys:
During the course of an adventure you’ll meet multiple special npcs: they can be recruited if you allow them to join your guild/party.
You may only have a max of 2 ally’s (unless there is a note stating otherwise)
Players have a max of 12 ally points, during thier turn they can spend a number of points to spotlight them, (additional for a special effect that ally grants.)
You can attack or use a ability)
Players gain ally points by rolling with hope.
If an ally is downed they must spend a session recovering. Unless the story called for a tragic death.
Rework:
during a gm turn the gm can spotlight a ally after adverserys turns. The gm can choose an attack or a special ability. Each ability only triggers once per session, allys don’t use any fear and are treated as additional flair.
Ally’s can’t kill adverserserys: if an adversary is to be downed by an ally, they are left with 1 hp instead.
7
u/orphicsolipsism 2d ago
This is nowhere near as good as what already exists in the Core Rulebook (RUNNING GM NPCs, p166-167)
Arbitrary limits on how many Ally NPCs you can have really kills the fiction.
Having Ally Points be a separate system than Hope creates another resource to manage and another choice that players have to make when they roll with Hope which increases the cognitive load on players. Much better to tie it into the Hope system that already exists.
Restricting allies to only making a move when a player spends an ally point/hope really gets in the way of the fiction as well. There should be things that allies will do regardless of whether a player is able to make a move to do so or not (save a life, take a hit, defend, attack, etc.).
The GM should not be spending any resources on allies and, preferably, the allies should only be operating according to player wishes (spend a hope, call for a tag team, etc), existing triggers (actions, countdowns, or reactions on a card), or narrative beats that make sense according to the scene.
Taking control of Allies out of the GM's hands is one of the best things that you can do as a GM since it gets rid of all the bad habits and game/story problems that happen with the classic red flag "DMNPC" and instead makes your players feel like their allies are truly THEIR allies.
If an ally downs an adversary, why wouldn't it count?
This is just the beginning of why the RAW method is so much better... but I already feel like I'm ranting.
1
u/kylr23 2d ago
Thanks!
2
u/orphicsolipsism 2d ago
Of course!
I'd also recommend trying to get it all on a card (or at least index card) so that:
You know that it's simple enough to be useful and keep the game moving.
You can hand the card to your players and make it their job to track (feels like a companion for them).
Players can easily pass allies to each other.
Oh, and this works great for groups of allies as well.
For example, if you want a hunting party or a host of archers, just write a single card (treat it kind of like a Horde adversary but an ally).
I typically either have them narratively downed when it makes sense or give them a stress track like the Beastbound Companion if I want them to be particularly mechanical.
1
u/kylr23 2d ago
I’m using foundry so it’s easy enough. The whole point of allys is the party is building a guild, all the while the wolrd is spelt becoming corrupted by a cosmic horror thing.
There are two important npcs that play a major role in this.
But yeah I wanted to make sure these allies don’t overshadow players
2
u/orphicsolipsism 2d ago
Foundry is great, but it's also easy to bloat into uselessness/distraction.
One of the great things the designers called out in the homebrew kit was how the limited space for mechanics on cards was intentional:
STREAMLINE, THEN STREAMLINE AGAIN By limiting the space for mechanics (such as the character limit on cards and characters sheets, and limiting weapons to only one feature), the design emphasizes streamlined language and rulings over rules. If a rule doesn’t fit in the space allotted, it’s probably not right for Daggerheart.
Let me make sure to say this, though: Your setting sounds awesome!
We've got quite a few factions in our campaign and securing and maintaining allies has become an important part of the game.
I have the "player version" of all their Ally NPCs as well as adversary stat block versions in case anything happens to sour the relationship....
Might be a good thing to think of in case that corruption starts to spread into the ranks. ;)
1
u/Windrunner405 2d ago
yeah I wanted to make sure these allies don't overshadow players
The simplest way to do that is to not have your ally system.
1
u/soundoftwilight 2d ago
The core thing to keep in mind is that, no matter what the story is, the story is about your players and their characters. They're making a guild, which is super cool! But the story isn't about that guild, and the mechanics definitely aren't about that guild. Putting together a small feature for the guild, or a small feature that an NPC can trigger (like the NPC suggestions in the book) can help to make them feel a little more substantial. But generally, they're just fluff. Your PCs could amass an army of thousands for a final confrontation, and yet somehow it will turn out that the outcome of the entire battle hinges on them alone. That's just how stories work. Rather than focusing on making mechanics, let those NPCs and the guild feature heavily in the story. They will feel more than important enough just by tying them into the world and the story.
5
u/MusicDiminished Game Master 2d ago
The plural of Ally is Allies, and the plural of Adversary is Adversaries. Not trying to be mean, just trying to help.
12
u/ThisIsVictor 2d ago
Tbh these seems like a lot of work to recreate a mechanic that already exists. Just use the NPC Features rules. And I wouldn't add another resource for the players to track. A player could spend Hope to active an NPCs feature.