Houses of the Blooded

[leakingpen]

Anyone here playing it?

[Ernir]

Tried it once. Interesting system.

Seems to be squarely in the "niche" category of RP systems, though.

[The Big Dice]

I've not played it, and I agree that it's very much a niche system. Along with Blood and Honour, also by John Wick and applying many similar concepts to samurai roleplay.

That said, it's got some fascinating ideas. Like the way a successful skill roll doesn't mean you succeed. It means that the player gets to choose if he succeeds or fails at the task at hand. And the idea of Wagers letting the player decide on certain things relating to the outcome of his decision on whether or not he passed his roll is intriguing.

John Wick put some ideas on using a similar system in D&D, along with ditching the D20, on his YouTube channel. It's well worth checking out and I think it could make for an interesting E6 variant.

[Ormur]

Only played it once. Because of how the players can decide things about NPCs and other players it ended up like the world's most complicated soap opera after a single session. The combat mechanics were a bit strange I recall but that might just have been us reading it wrong. But it was fun and I'd try it again, knowing how it plays out now.

[Greenish]

Like the way a successful skill roll doesn't mean you succeed. It means that the player gets to choose if he succeeds or fails at the task at hand.

Why? Is there a reason you'd wish to fail?

[Ernir]

Why? Is there a reason you'd wish to fail?

Mostly... for drama.

This isn't a game about making your character succeed, it's about using it (and the other players' characters) to make a heart-wrenching story.

[Swooper]

I'm a big fan (as you may see from my current avatar). Played in both a oneshot and a longer "campaign" (if that's the right word for it in HotB's case) and ran the oneshot Ernir and Ormur played in.

That said, it has pros and cons.

As has been mentioned, yes, it's very much a niche system. It is pretty much married to Shanri, the default setting detailed in the book, and the setting is such a big influence on how you're supposed to play the game. Removing it from this setting would probably remove a lot of the unique feel this game has.

The core mechanic is simple and interesting. The game gives so much narrative control to the players, which makes for a very different gaming experience. It feels much more like the players are actively participating in the storymaking process that roleplaying is, rather than just actors with no say in the script. A single, well-phrased wager can turn then entire plot around. "I killed the count."

It is really not designed for combat. A duel can drag out for way too long, which gets old really fast. Especially for the players not actually participating in the duel. The mass murder rules (for any combat with more than two combatants) are too simplified on the other hand, and essentially boil down to "I kill one of your guys, then you kill one of mine" until one side is dead.

The micromanagement aspect, in the form of running your province, expanding it, dealing with the trouble that unavoidably comes up and so on seems like it's either a hit or a miss with players - I enjoyed it personally, but some of the other players in the long game I played in didn't like it as much (we played as the vassals of a baron, pretty much running his province for him). We ended up trying to deal with much of it online between sessions, to some success.

All in all, I totally recommend at least giving it a try. It's very different from anything I'd ever played before, and it gave me a new insight on roleplaying.

Only played it once. Because of how the players can decide things about NPCs and other players it ended up like the world's most complicated soap opera after a single session. The combat mechanics were a bit strange I recall but that might just have been us reading it wrong. But it was fun and I'd try it again, knowing how it plays out now.

We weren't reading them wrong, but I used the duel rules where I should have resolved the conflict with a simple Prowess Risk.

[The Big Dice]

Why? Is there a reason you'd wish to fail?

Sometimes there is. Especially when you can use Wagers to affect the narrative result of that failure.

The example John Wick gave in one of his youtube talks on the game was, imagine you're getting chased across the rooftops by your enemies. You roll to jump from one roof to another and put aside two dice as Wagers.

You beat the difficulty of the roll, but decide to fail. Except, you use one of your Wagers to miss the roof but land on a balcony. The second Wager you use to decide that the balcony you land on is the one outside the bedroom window of your character's romantic interest.

In other words, you "failed" but because you had narrative control over some aspects of what the failure meant, you actually succeeded by more than simply jumping from one roof to another would have meant.