In defense of bonds:
I think we all agree that one of the biggest problems with bonds is the amorphous concept of resolving bonds. What does this even mean!?!
I think the core problem is that many default playbook bonds provide a poor example. Some examples from Dungeon Planet’s Mutant:
Grig has been a friend to me when
others were prejudiced.
Anton will help me create a new mutant civilization.
There is no clear way to resolve these, unless maybe Grig and Anton recant their kindness. With these as samples, it is no wonder when new players reach the point of creating new bonds, they might go astray.
From a few Reddit posts on the topic and my own experience, I think that a good bond follows this formula:
“[Belief about another player]. [Future short term goal based on that belief]”
An example from the Dungeon Planet Technician:
Anton is distrustful of machines. I will prove their value.
With this formula, resolution becomes much more concrete.
A bond is resolved when:
1. Your character no longer holds the belief;
2. Your character accomplishes the goal; or
3. Your character no longer wants to accomplish the goal.
Don’t get me wrong…I like flags but:
I believe that bonds can be great tools. I must prove that bonds still have a place at your table too.
If bonds aren’t described as such in the book then that’s not good either though right. And it sounds like people are taking bonds and actually applying beliefs from burning wheel, so are those still bonds. Maybe what you really want at your table is the belief mechanic from burning wheel in your game and not bonds at all. Also, if people are making bonds incorrectly because of the staple examples in the book, are their problems with the mechanic or it just seems clarity? To me this reads as a different mechanic all together, but I don’t have much experience with DW having only played it a couple times.
If bonds aren’t described as such in the book then that’s not good either though right. And it sounds like people are taking bonds and actually applying beliefs from burning wheel, so are those still bonds. Maybe what you really want at your table is the belief mechanic from burning wheel in your game and not bonds at all. Also, if people are making bonds incorrectly because of the staple examples in the book, are their problems with the mechanic or it just seems clarity? To me this reads as a different mechanic all together, but I don’t have much experience with DW having only played it a couple times.
I like the idea of “short term goal”, even if they are less about where the other player ends up and what I want to do:
“Anton is distrustful of machines. I will demonstrate their value.”
In this case it is less about whether or not Anton changes his opinion, but about what I plan to do about the situation. Completing this is clear to me: I have demonstrated the value, whether or not Anton changes his mind.
Separately, although I like the idea of flags, bonds do seem like a better option for some one-off / con game sessions. I’d rather start with a few bonds, and if this is a campaign or longer arc, start to introduce flags to replace the constant bond completion or creation. But haven’t played with flags enough to have a concrete opinion on the matter.
I like the idea of “short term goal”, even if they are less about where the other player ends up and what I want to do:
“Anton is distrustful of machines. I will demonstrate their value.”
In this case it is less about whether or not Anton changes his opinion, but about what I plan to do about the situation. Completing this is clear to me: I have demonstrated the value, whether or not Anton changes his mind.
Separately, although I like the idea of flags, bonds do seem like a better option for some one-off / con game sessions. I’d rather start with a few bonds, and if this is a campaign or longer arc, start to introduce flags to replace the constant bond completion or creation. But haven’t played with flags enough to have a concrete opinion on the matter.
So, I stuck with the Adventures on Dungeon Planet bonds on the playbooks because, well, I hadn’t used them before. And I actually found them more interesting than the Dungeon World bonds. 🙂 Otherwise I go FULL FLAG.
But I’ve never treated Bonds as things to be ‘resolved’, rules as written. Instead, I talk about when they are ‘hit’, ‘highlighted’, ‘triggered’, come in to play in some meaningful way. It tends to be the type of thing that when it happens, someone knows it happens. Much like Keys in Lady Blackbird or The Shadow of Yesterday.
Once a Bond has been hit or at the end of session, it can be re-written or kept if it’s still interesting. Like flags, they are fictional plot points that you want to see happen and are incentivized by the mechanics to pursue, going along with whatever plot arc you may see for this character. It’s a player responsibility to make them interesting and useful, so to a certain degree, I leave it up to players to explore.
So, I stuck with the Adventures on Dungeon Planet bonds on the playbooks because, well, I hadn’t used them before. And I actually found them more interesting than the Dungeon World bonds. 🙂 Otherwise I go FULL FLAG.
But I’ve never treated Bonds as things to be ‘resolved’, rules as written. Instead, I talk about when they are ‘hit’, ‘highlighted’, ‘triggered’, come in to play in some meaningful way. It tends to be the type of thing that when it happens, someone knows it happens. Much like Keys in Lady Blackbird or The Shadow of Yesterday.
Once a Bond has been hit or at the end of session, it can be re-written or kept if it’s still interesting. Like flags, they are fictional plot points that you want to see happen and are incentivized by the mechanics to pursue, going along with whatever plot arc you may see for this character. It’s a player responsibility to make them interesting and useful, so to a certain degree, I leave it up to players to explore.
Tomer Gurantz Agreed very much on the one off / con game notions. I find bonds are a great way to get a party started so that there’s a bit more meat to why they are all together and how the dynamics are between people. I still like having them there, and I’ve been trying to think about how to have both bonds and flags in longer term play in some sort of parallel usage.
Tomer Gurantz Agreed very much on the one off / con game notions. I find bonds are a great way to get a party started so that there’s a bit more meat to why they are all together and how the dynamics are between people. I still like having them there, and I’ve been trying to think about how to have both bonds and flags in longer term play in some sort of parallel usage.
Tim B I really liked the way you handled our bonds as triggers. You get the benefit of using bonds to build connections between players in character creation without running into the difficulty of resolving bonds. I think it worked well. This post was definitely inspired by looking at the set of mutant bonds last night and thinking … Well none of these can ever be resolved. They just wouldn’t work for bonds under RAW.
Tim B I really liked the way you handled our bonds as triggers. You get the benefit of using bonds to build connections between players in character creation without running into the difficulty of resolving bonds. I think it worked well. This post was definitely inspired by looking at the set of mutant bonds last night and thinking … Well none of these can ever be resolved. They just wouldn’t work for bonds under RAW.
I would be totally cool with Bonds if they were like Histories in Monster of the Week, which is to say they are only used to set-up relationships with the characters.
I would be totally cool with Bonds if they were like Histories in Monster of the Week, which is to say they are only used to set-up relationships with the characters.
I would award Bond XP if the players evolved their characters’ relationship to the point that a bond description could be expanded – even if the bond hasn’t been resolved.
For example, let’s consider the case of “Grig has been a friend to me when others were prejudiced.”
If it’s revealed in gameplay that Grig also has experienced similar prejudice, the PC’s bond with Grig could evolve to “Grig has been a friend to me because we have experienced similar prejudice”.
For the most part, the relationship is the same. But the knowledge of shared experience would deepen that relationship to the point that I as GM would want to reward that roleplay.
And this would ease the problem of a bond that is so broad that playing it out would not award XP without drastic, once-in-a-campaign type dramatics.
Dan Bryant Ryan Kubryn Robert Doe Patrick Schenk David Turner – tagging you because this is relevant to our game.
I would award Bond XP if the players evolved their characters’ relationship to the point that a bond description could be expanded – even if the bond hasn’t been resolved.
For example, let’s consider the case of “Grig has been a friend to me when others were prejudiced.”
If it’s revealed in gameplay that Grig also has experienced similar prejudice, the PC’s bond with Grig could evolve to “Grig has been a friend to me because we have experienced similar prejudice”.
For the most part, the relationship is the same. But the knowledge of shared experience would deepen that relationship to the point that I as GM would want to reward that roleplay.
And this would ease the problem of a bond that is so broad that playing it out would not award XP without drastic, once-in-a-campaign type dramatics.
Dan Bryant Ryan Kubryn Robert Doe Patrick Schenk David Turner – tagging you because this is relevant to our game.
Jason Cordova Hmm. I’m really liking this idea. So perhaps your history with the other characters is established through static bonds that do not award XP. In play, you use flags to facilitate the inter-party relationships moving forward.
Jason Cordova Hmm. I’m really liking this idea. So perhaps your history with the other characters is established through static bonds that do not award XP. In play, you use flags to facilitate the inter-party relationships moving forward.
Bonds award EXP when your relationship changes for better or worst.
“Lin owes me their life, whether they admit it or not.”
to
“Lin as taken the sword that should belong to me. I will see to it that it becomes mine.”
or
“Lin saved my friend, I will lend them aid when they need it.”
Bonds award EXP when your relationship changes for better or worst.
“Lin owes me their life, whether they admit it or not.”
to
“Lin as taken the sword that should belong to me. I will see to it that it becomes mine.”
or
“Lin saved my friend, I will lend them aid when they need it.”
I think there are two major issues with bonds, aside from the fact that the provided bonds are terrible examples. The first is that most players feel that resolving a bond and earning an xp each session is a requirement or obligation. This leads to them making terrible, vague, meaningless bonds to guarantee one is resolved or (possibly worse) acting strangely in play to insure they can check it off at the end of the game. It also leads to people not really holding each other to any sort of standard for earning that bond XP. its very rare that someone will disagree about whether or not you earned that xp. Did you hit that subject? Kinda… I guess… whatever. This is partially due to the second reason, bonds are generally only considered at the end of the game. We are putting up and some of us have to leave. We generally spend less then 5 mins on bonds for the whole party. Sometimes people do put some thought into the bonds they write but they rarely ever tell anyone about it beyond a “I have a __ bond with player X and I resolved it during this game.” Flags seem to work much better in part because they set up a bargain for another player. I pay attention to your flags because they earn me an xp and inform me about your character. You take notice when I engage your flag because it begins a scene you specifically requested. We are both involved and rewarded and
I think Bonds and flags can both be improved by spending more time discussing them at the beginning and during the game. Also by requiring all players to work together on them and hold each other to a high standard of RP to earn XP. “I don’t think we realy hit that this game, lets try to focus on it next time!” yes it will mean leveling is even slower but it will instill more value and effort into bonds and inter-party relations.
I think there are two major issues with bonds, aside from the fact that the provided bonds are terrible examples. The first is that most players feel that resolving a bond and earning an xp each session is a requirement or obligation. This leads to them making terrible, vague, meaningless bonds to guarantee one is resolved or (possibly worse) acting strangely in play to insure they can check it off at the end of the game. It also leads to people not really holding each other to any sort of standard for earning that bond XP. its very rare that someone will disagree about whether or not you earned that xp. Did you hit that subject? Kinda… I guess… whatever. This is partially due to the second reason, bonds are generally only considered at the end of the game. We are putting up and some of us have to leave. We generally spend less then 5 mins on bonds for the whole party. Sometimes people do put some thought into the bonds they write but they rarely ever tell anyone about it beyond a “I have a __ bond with player X and I resolved it during this game.” Flags seem to work much better in part because they set up a bargain for another player. I pay attention to your flags because they earn me an xp and inform me about your character. You take notice when I engage your flag because it begins a scene you specifically requested. We are both involved and rewarded and
I think Bonds and flags can both be improved by spending more time discussing them at the beginning and during the game. Also by requiring all players to work together on them and hold each other to a high standard of RP to earn XP. “I don’t think we realy hit that this game, lets try to focus on it next time!” yes it will mean leveling is even slower but it will instill more value and effort into bonds and inter-party relations.