Removing the Resilience Cards Mechanic

The concept of using a deck of playing cards in the Ironsworn system has been something compelling for me since the beginning of the Ironcrunch development. However, with the implementation of more cards into the game (Items, Conditions, and Demeanors), I've been having my doubts about keeping this mechanic. The latest playtest sessions I've been having with my group made me realize that removing it might be a rightful choice. Here's why.

TO ADHERE TO THE HIT-AND-MISS FLOW OF IRONSWORN

The purpose of the resilience mechanic has been to counter miss streaks, which is very common in the game. And it was, indeed, an efficient way to achieve this; way too efficient, to the point where it might break the perilous nature of the core system, considering that there are two other mechanics that already fulfill this purpose in a more elegant way

• Learn from Faults move: This one differentiate from the Learn from Failures move in Ironsworn: Delve not only in the results of the roll, but also in that you mark 2 ticks when you get a miss on a progress move, and double the number of ticks if the miss is with a match, which makes faster the filling of the track.
• Make an Effort move: Adding +1 to a move in exchange of -1 momentum has been a simple and flawless mechanic that has served both to add more tactics to the system and character customization. By removing the resilience cards, I would have to add more experience to spend in effort levels during the character creation in order to grant more focus to this mechanic.

TO REDUCE CRUNCHINESS

Simplifying the game has been a goal in the latest updates. Removing the resilience cards will help this for the following reasons.

• The learning curve: Incorporating new players into my recurrent game sessions has been a challenge. I often introduce them to vanilla Ironsworn first and after two sessions, I get them to Ironcrunch. That often leads to a learning curve a bit clunky mostly due to the resilience cards, which are rarely used at first, for then to be over-used later.
• Convenience: Ironcrunch offers many options as to how to approach narrative situations. Removing the resilience mechanic reduces these options, which forces the players to focus on the existing ones with more narrative input and justifications to use other means than simply throwing a card to get a better result.

TO AVOID MORE CUMBERSOME IN THE TABLE

Ironcurnch already uses many index cards, and I'm not planning to incorporate more. Conditions and Items are the big two card-mechanics additions to the Ironsworn system that are mandatory for this supplement, being Ancestries, Demeanors, and Motivations optional. All these are in essence index cards with micro-rules (just like assets are). Thematically, having this many index cards and poker playing cards at the same time is a little off. Removing them will reduce fiddling during play.

THE MECHANIC MIGHT BE IMPLEMENTED AS AN ASSET

I have many assets in drafts for both Ironsworn and Ironcrunch. I might find a way to make the resilience mechanic a path asset, splitting the micro-rules of the mechanic into three abilities. This will make the use of playing cards optional to the player instead of mandatory and with the cost of experience, which will balance things in terms of ludic concept and mechanics.

Designing games is an artisan craft: you put a lot of work into every aspect, so making a decision like this isn't easy, but the reasons have enough weight.

The next update, besides adding a slew of creatures and content to the bestiary appendix, will simplify things further in other moves. These are minors, such as removing the prompt of the Undertake a Journey that makes you take a condition if making the move repeatedly, removing the prompt of the Strike move that makes you add +1 if varying the maneuverability, and making the roll of Endure Harm no longer optional (this overlaps with the function of the armor, causing the weak hit result too inconvenient).

As always, if you have any feedback, don't hesitate in sharing it with me.