I have been reflecting on a recurrent theme I’ve heard today. There is an objection to the game making it too easy for characters to succeed. This is not a concern I share, at least not in the current model.
Just for a thought exercise, what if the current numbers held more or less the same for what happens in each band, but the bands were 1-2, 3-4, 5-6? So 1-2 was terrible, 3-4 success but qualified, and 5-6 success?
I think the result would be emboldening the rogues. They would be less risk-averse, and complications would still arise in play because they would push harder.
So they beat a heist more easily. Then there’s another one, isn’t there? If things seem too easy, hit them with more severe consequences if they do not succeed; tougher foes, more lethal dangers. Threaten them with things that are not easily diced away, like a rival faction gunning for their assets or the danger of becoming a pawn between two powerful rivals.
If the game is too easy and they get bored (an unlikely consequence in my mind), then make it more difficult by giving them tougher missions and more interesting choices to make–not by making it more difficult to succeed in their chosen course of action because DICE.
I guess I’m coming out of a more permissive mind set that wants to see the players do well when they choose to act, so the focus shifts from “Can we do it” to “what do we do.” Dice being what they are, you’ve still got plenty of chances for complications and escalations.
Just a thought. I’m just not grasping the value of using the mechanics to make sure the game is difficult enough, like we risk it being too easy. Especially with the really small dice pools and the inability to spend stress to advance clocks.
.
That’s certainly a way to go. How do you think that would scale as the characters progress? Unlike many other dice pool systems in which you count number of successes, failure declines exponentially with dice pool size here.
Christopher Rinderspacher I am actually not distressed by the idea that more experienced and better equipped rogues do better.
Ah you perhaps using too many clocks? I got the impression that effectively “one tick” clocks were perfectly acceptable for simple tasks. Haven’t played myself yet though.
Part of the issue is that due to the danger of not rolling 6s, my players were severely reluctant to try any action they didn’t have 2 dots in, and even then if they couldn’t use their background or special gear they were leery.
I would like players to be able to relax and step outside only attempting what they are best at. Lots of plans were rejected because they required actions that would only have 1 or 0 dice pools.
Sounds like a simple solution that may ‘scale back’ as the characters get more competent with experience, but I would suggest giving them more HP. Stress is a mitigation control resource after all. Just make it 10 stress for a trauma, or needing 5 traumas before you retire.
Rolling a 6 is a big event! It should be celebrated! My players however are the opposite. They find it far more exciting to roll a mixed success on a 4-5, just like a 7-9 in AW.
I have had the “hood” hard moves handy during play too. This has helped me come up with complications on the fly that excite all of us to see pan out in play.
Nathan Roberts My group doesn’t play many story games. I’ve run some by them, and the results have been mixed. I guess you have a different experience bringing *world players to BitD than bringing more traditional gamers to the table.
More stress or trauma points would prolong how long they could be in the field, but would not help them succeed better. That just helps mitigate the consequences of their failures or complications. Not unrelated, but not quite the same as making them more competent. Just more durable. Still, it’s an option.
Instead of altering the basic mechanics I would just tone down danger. Danger happens constantly on rolls. Not getting danger means you’re doing what you’re best at AND you’ve been very lucky. A big part of calibration the difficulty and the tone of the game is what danger means.
If danger is always lethal, crippling, humiliating, or otherwise disastrous players are going to feel like catastrophe is always a breath away. If danger is often opening up the potential for something really disastrous, or the arrival of something threatening that must be dealt with rather than something that befalls the PCs before threatening, the players are going to feel in control and like a well-oiled machine, rolling with the punches and always finding an edge.
In *World terms, I think you need more soft moves and fewer hard moves.
Get the dangers at the level your group prefers first, I think. Then see about changing core mechanics.
Daniel Helman Well, you can read the play report. I feel most of the danger I presented was more impending, potential, and escalating, rather than immediately deadly or humiliating.
A supernatural trap activated a monster who stalked them, but was taken out in down time without ever attacking. A clock to alert the building was started, but took four rounds to fill. They became aware of additional security on site. Stuff like that.
Hi Andrew Shields. I’m familiar with some of the issues you have come across. I found using shorter clocks and a “less is more” approach to creating said clocks helped a lot. I found the best clocks are ones that are fairly “meta” (a story obstacle rather than an individual obstacle, if that makes sense?), so that players can decide what action they want to use to overcome those obstacles. Creating more clocks as an effect of the danger will really drag out the action. Which is fine if you want everything to go to hell in that scene! However, I find the game flows better when you tell them an effect that might be momentarily problematic for when you want the pace to be fast, and then offer dire effects when the scene reaches a climax. Petitioning the players for effect suggestions is a good policy if you’re running out of ideas. Good luck with your game, and I hope you get a chance to try it out again. From your write up it sounds like you’ve done a terrific job of setting up a fun story!
Also (sorry for the double post), it does sounds like your players were quite risk averse. Perhaps encouraging them with the knowledge that gaining Trauma is the only way to increase Vice might be of assistance? It’s a bit of a paradigm shift from HPs, etc and I wouldn’t blame anyone for trying to conserve stress if they didn’t know that their character actually IMPROVED from taking stress.
Great Advice Dan!
Actually, in Blades we have very detailed rules to manage the situations, but we have no good hints on “how many clocks you should put in a easy mission? How many for a very challenging one?”. I think it could be quite easy to design a model for that, using some math and taking in account a “standard party”.
John Harper I think these series of postings make it clear that Dangers and Obstacles have to be adjusted to the groups individual playstyles and interests. But maybe some score generating tables for different PC levels could help some GM in their first Games?
Yes, the full game will have lots of this kind of thing, including pre-made “mission sets” with clocks and dangers for various scores.
A lot of gamers have difficulty with AW or Dungeon World at first, as they get used to the difference in how rolls function (very different from, say, a D20 game). Risk-aversion is a thing I’ve seen in many APs — and not just from so-called “traditional” gamers! Jason Morningstar had some really rough “we fail all the time!” experiences when he first started playing AW.
It takes some adjustment. Hopefully I can write the game book in a way that makes the adjustment easier and highlights how to avoid some common pitfalls — especially the flailing failure feeling, which is basically the opposite vibe that a proper Blades game should give.
Thanks to Andrew and others for sharing their difficult experiences! It’s really helpful as I’m writing — these issues don’t come up with a certain segment of gamers, and those are the people that have been playtesting up to now. It’s really important to see it from another POV and learn where it’s falling down for them.
John Harper I am pleased to offer feedback, especially when it is well received.
Part of the difficulty that you have in designing the game is that not every player is likely to have read the book before play starts. Not only do you have to transmit the style and underlying assumptions and toolsets to someone else through words, but then the one who is reading must transmit the style and underlying assumptions to players who may have no experience with the game besides the table.
As you write, you are looking after the game’s invisible grandchildren. =)
Yeah, thanks Andrew for sharing the hard times, I hope you are still encouraged to GM more? By your AP, you are an enthusiastic and great improvisational GM! You have a flair for the exciting and dramatic, and I would be happy to play in a Blades game with you 🙂