So I ran a second session, also doing character and crew creation and two heists. This time it was three hours total, online no less. What was different?
https://fictivefantasies.wordpress.com/2015/04/20/another-blades-in-the-dark-adventure-summary/
ESCALATION. Both characters took the “Daring” special ability, and they used it constantly. They also constantly overreached for better results. Even when the dice were poor, they would increase the danger and try again.
WAS IT EASIER FOR THE SECOND GROUP? It’s hard for me to tell from my position, subjectively. Did I go easier on them than I did on the previous group? Well, they had a lot less clocks, but in general they tried plans that were more compact. Maybe? There were less clocks, anyway. I had never played with them before, or they with me, so that changes the dynamic too. I dunno. Also, this was my second time, and I spent half the weekend on G+ analyzing the last session.
Upon reflection, it WAS easier. I focused more on effect clocks and used little or no resistance clocks. I think I was gunshy about the terrible response last time.
I NEED HELP WITH EXPERIENCE. Trying to figure out experience is still difficult for me. I forget how they raise the crew upgrades; I figure it’s in the quickstart somewhere, but there’s overlapping reporting on various elements of downtime and session wrap-up and I don’t know where. I need a reference for how each thing raises, to consult during play, after each heist, and at the end of a session.
NEW BACKGROUND. I added “Whaler” as a background; use that to avoid being nauseated by anything, to know the culture of the sea, to be stone-faced in the midst of slaughter, and so on.
I still don’t feel like I’ve got a really good grasp on everything, but this adventure went a lot smoother than the last one, and these players want to try again.
https://fictivefantasies.wordpress.com/2015/04/20/another-blades-in-the-dark-adventure-summary
One thing I wondered while reading your AP report: When Escalating from Risky to Desperate, did you have the danger manifest before the next attempt? And the same for Desperate to Desperate + worse danger?
Jonas Matser No, the danger did not manifest between rolls. I did explain how the danger became more desperate between rolls, though. So, as they rolled for the escalation, they knew what was NOW at stake. Then the new roll determined whether it manifested or not.
I did not hit them with as many clocks as in my previous game, though.
Yay! I’m so glad you gave it a second shot Andrew. Boy, your groups tell some fantastic tales during the game! Did you get that as you were doing the write up?! No prep or preplanned storyline and just look at the cool shit you guys came up with at the table! Its EPIC, and makes me ant to playa kidnapping heist like right now.
Like most games, GMing Blades is a particular skill-set and you are getting the hang of it. Well done! Just wait to you can co-GM, make a PC and ‘fade’ into the background when its your turn to take over and GM a scene / heist / session. Good times.
I really like the whaler background, consider it stolen.
What help do you need with experience? I KNOW you have read p.20. What doesn’t gel there for you?
I think with risky and desperate the danger still manifests if you choose to reroll, that’s how I read the rules anyway.
Nathan Roberts Yeah, it has a different rhythm. I like to do improv stuff and just make stuff up as we play. After getting some sleep, I can see how in this last session I used almost no resistance rolls; I chalk it up to being distracted by being online for the first time, and also to playing with people I never played with before, and also really wanting it to go well. Turned me into a big softie. I’ll lean into it a bit more next time.
Help with experience!
* I had us stop and tally experience between each heist rather than at the end of the session. There was enough that we did each time that it was significant and could increase action abilities or effects or special abilities, and especially with the desperate mark-ups, it would be unhelpful to wait until the end of the session. Why wouldn’t I do that? If we did stuff in both heists, then tallied experience at the end of the session, would we mark stuff we did twice with two points towards leveling? If not, why not? Doing it after each heist as part of down time shrugged that question off.
* I would like to have a cheat sheet with all the playbook advances, crew advances, and other types of advances laid out so I could quickly glance at it during play, between heists, and at the end/beginning of a session. I KNOW I’m missing stuff. Instead of granting experience in media res as they did stuff, we reviewed at the end of the heist (which I think probably worked just as well or better.) This will get smoother as players are more familiar with what their characters can do.
* So, I think the desperate ticks work for effects, actions, and special ability advances. Is that right?
* I know I fumbled coin and hold a bit. The first session I ran I forgot to give everyone 2 coin to begin, and this time I made sure to remember that. There’s an interaction with heists, coin, and crew level that I’m not sure I’m getting right, and I’m not sure I have it right when a heist is over and I grant coin to the crew/characters to split up.
The good news is, they want to play again, so advancement is likely to continue to matter. =)
Yeah, I’m sure John has a summary sheet in the works.
We still just talked through xp stuff at the end of the session (though I think John suggests that the beginning of the session is just as valid).
The re-cap conversation is rather similar to other ‘World games and not unfamiliar to me. It runs fairly smooth. And there is nothing to say you can’t garner more than one tick for the same ‘category’ of playbook advancement items if there are multiple fictional events that satisfy the XP trigger. (Stras does just that with his Whisper in the Hangout one-shot).
Yes you’ve got the desperate ticks right. Just think of them as ‘wild card XP’. I’ve been promoting them to the players during the game so that they pursue desperate (rather than risky) situations and actions.
So the Heat / Development roll takes place after each score (not at the end of a session) and just follow the tables, yeah? The resultant coin is then part of the crew’s funds for downtime rolls or is stashed away in the lair.
I think this too is the +1 Level effect you’ve been hankering after (but it only applies to personal projects or development rolls). This way you can guarantee a 6 on your gather info roll so long as you have the coin.
When you do the end of session stuff, that’s when the PC’s get their personal share of coin too – Stashed or kept on hand for vice or crew downtime rolls.
Jonas Matser Hm, now I’m not sure I understand what “manifests” means. I have been doing escalation by increasing the danger present, rather than saying that danger happens but they can try to succeed while coping with the danger that happened and also more danger that may happen.
Like, to me, you could be on a tightrope with a balance pole in a risk situation. You fail your roll and now will fall. You do not want to fall, so you toss the balance pole and go to a desperate situation; if you fail, you fall, as before, but now even if you succeed you are in a desperate situation from here on out. I would not have the tightrope walker fall, THEN try to escalate. I guess you could say that the tightrope walker DOES fall, but can escalate to desperate to catch the rope on the way down.
Or, you are trying to talk your way into a gang in a risky situation. You fail, so the gang is angry; but you escalate to desperate, and reveal you were pranking them all along. If you apply the danger, then the gang does something to the character before the character can turn it around, right? But if the character succeeds, then the situation could be defused. In that case did the first consequence of the gang getting rough with the character actually result in action with potential injury?
Or, you are getting stabbed by a rogue in a fight, risky situation. You escalate it; does that allow you to pull off a desperate parry at the cost of losing a weapon, or do you get stabbed THEN escalate to the desperate action?
Now I don’t think I understand. I was running it so if you escalate, that delays possible consequences until the new roll, but if it goes poorly it will go much MORE poorly than it would have before. Maybe I was wrong.
If the first consequence happens even if you escalate, you potentially have to pay stress twice in one action, right? Like, you want to succeed, so you fail and pay stress to avoid the bad thing, THEN escalate and if you fail again or even if you succeed with dangers manifesting, pay stress AGAIN.
So the way I read the rules, anything but the Controlled position has the danger manifest on 1-3. So the player rolls effect and decides whether to spend stress or take the effect.
But the danger manifesting does not equal failing. This is obvious if you look at Risky 4-5, for example, since this has both success and the danger manifesting. This means that success/failure and danger are orthogonal axes.
After the effect has been resolved (again, except in the Controlled position), the player gets the choice to try again taking a bigger risk.
How to apply the orthogonal success/failure and danger is another matter. This isn’t always obvious and your tightrope example is a good one. If the player takes the stress, the outcome is clear, he gets stressed out, but continues. It’s the case where the player doesn’t take the stress that’s complicated. Like you said, fall and grab the rope? Or fall, twist an ankle and try again? Or be forced to make a final jump to try to catch the window sill?
Yeah, paying stress twice is exactly my point. If you don’t do that, escalating becomes a very attractive option because you can basically do it without cost until you succeed. If you have to pay the stress first, it’s still a good option, because you do it only when you really want to succeed and paying the extra stress is just the cost of doing business.
Yeah, escalating without cost until you succeed is something I saw as the lure, the trap. Sure, you can re-roll, but the tradeoff is you’ll be in a more desperate situation facing bigger danger if it DOESN’T work out.
If I had been using escalation as you describe, they would have gotten thrashed. They both took “Daring” and frequently escalated, and often overreached. If they had been punished for it each time, the game reports would look very different, that’s for sure.
I can imagine. I just wanted to point out that it’s not by the RAW as far as I can tell. So this is another something to either try RAW to see how it goes or discuss your experiences here.
Thanks for the great AP by the way. Sounds like you had a lot of fun.
I think that’s the sort of ‘tone’ and ‘precedent’ discussion that needs to happen at the start of the game, in the first session for sure.
I can really see the escalating risk, high stress, high trauma game having its draw to some folks (me included!) But its not for all, and thus why I’m sure in the full text there will be a page or few on ‘Setting Expections’.
Sure, but drifting the rules this significantly should be part of the rules text or it goes beyond just ‘tone’, in my opinion.
Well, I don’t know. If you are being specifically mechanical when you specify the danger’s effects, then sure, Andrew is Drifting a little. But the rules (and I believe John’s intention) is that the three ‘modes’ of position are in order to granulate the ‘act under fire’ one move of the game.
The rules simply say (for risky and desperate) that ‘The danger manifests’ and ‘You face a more potent effect of the danger’. There is no real unpacking of how that plays out either in the fiction or the mechanics (except for the -1 resistance level). I Believe this is intentional.
Its designed to elucidate discussion and consensus, to get psyched about the fiction you are generating at the table, to encourage risk vs reward and spend stress to avoid effect, and re-incorporating precedent and tone.
Do you escalate or endure duress?
This is actually something I want to understand. Nathan Roberts concludes a comment with “Do you escalate or endure duress?” which is what I think I was doing.
As I understand Jonas Matser’s position, the question should be, “You endure duress. Do you escalate and potentially endure MORE duress for a chance of success in the face of your already-present failure?”
When you’ve got two characters in play, and both took “Daring” so they get +1d when they escalate, and they do so constantly, this is a major point to get right. I want to understand RAW.
Quoting from the rules, under Risky:
4/5: You do it but the danger manifests.
1-3: Things go badly. First, the danger manifests. Then, choose: Abandon this approach (you’ll have to try another way) or try again by taking a bigger risk and rolling a desperate move.
The reason I added 4/5 is it clearly shows the distinction between success/failure and danger, in the rules.
I guess I don’t understand what “manifests” means. Does that mean it looms in a threatening way and becomes a possibility, or it becomes something that requires a resistance roll?
I would assume so, based on the Desperate position table. Only Crit mentions avoiding the danger, 6 and 4/5 mention just ‘the danger manifests’ and 1-3 mentions ‘more potent effects from the danger (-1 to your resistance result level)’.
That’s what I was getting at Gents! It is ephemeral by design. What does ‘Manifests’ mean to your group / situation / tone?
The Danger may include a mechanical effect (and resultant resistance roll), It may trigger a flashback, it may cause stress / trauma, it SHOULD cause a more complicated situation for the character(s).
The dangers are not prescriptive by design (though there are a few germs of inspiration throughout the playbooks, crewsheets and heist lists).
How they manifest is not made explicit by design. It is a provocative question to your group.
In the middle of this discussion about escalation, I find myself seizing on what Nathan Roberts is saying about triggering a flashback involuntarily. Like you could have sustained an attack or loss in the past that is just now catching up to you. That is an interesting idea; beyond the scope of the quick start, but I’d like to see it codified in the rules as a result of escalation or as a devil’s bargain.
I am interested to know what John Harper has to say on what “manifest” means in the context of our discussion.
I also feel it is useful to point out that I don’t feel like I am playtesting, but instead I am playing the quick start. So, yes, I want to UNDERSTAND the rules as written, so I make conscious choices about how I interact with them. But hey; this is a flexible game, and I’m not playtesting it, so I’m not slavishly obedient to RAW.
The issue of escalation is so central to the mechanical structure of the game that if there really is this level of flexibility to be sometimes mechanical, sometimes fictional, sometimes flashback, basically whatever you need–that’s powerful. And I think it is good.
Yep, Nathan has it right. “The danger manifests” is an ambiguous phrase, by design.
When I play, it usually means harm, a countdown ticking down, etc. — something concrete happens, and it’s bad. I tend to play with very face-punchy groups that like to grind through badness and suffer scars and stuff.
But Andrew played it exactly right for his style and group. The danger manifests as a threat of something much worse, and they can choose to be Daring rogues who risk it all and come out without a scratch if they’re bold enough.
The next iteration of the text might help here, as it clarifies how to create and apply dangers.
Though there were different people taking point in the discussions, it is interesting to compare feedback on my last two sessions. The first one, there was a suggestion I was using too many clocks and too much danger. On this one, not nearly enough. =)
Maybe next time I will hit the balance!
Really this insight into “manifest” and the general use of danger is very helpful. I used plenty of countdown clocks; they were 2 in to the 4 segment clock of “the captain comes back to find you in his cabin” for example. I didn’t connect that to a roll, it’s just how it was, when they got into his room.
As opposed to the previous session, where the countdown clock to the whole building being alerted was connected with triggering a magical trap that was missed on a discern roll.
Yeah, Andrew, I really want the game to help everyone hit that balance much more reliably. I think it’s doable! 🙂
I made the mistake of reading this while listening to downward spiral… now i’ve got a splitting head ache…
I’ve read through through the rules three times now, but I’m still having a hell of a time understanding how the mechanics all fit together, the definition of manifest, the number of clocks that should be used, the level to which escalation should increase the danger… With the full rules can we expect more examples of play that outline how these parts should fit together?
Is it wrong to ask for less flexibility and more direction?
Rich Erich I feel this is fixed in the more recent drafts. Partial effect is a consequence, and others are listed, right on the action resolution description.
Andrew Shields, I just gotta say, you are a Gentleman. Lovely handling of these folk’s queries of superseded rules.
It also explains a LOT why we had a few hangups dealing with the rules yeah? Hindsight is glorious.
Thanks, Nathan Roberts.
One of the hardest parts of WRITING a role playing game is getting the parts that inform how you run games in general injected into a stranger, through text alone. We take so much for granted in the landscape of our own minds and methods, and those things need to be explicit to be transmitted.
I feel like that’s one of the great benefits of having a community to help kick it around. And, a game like this that pulls from many inspirations also pulls fans from many traditions, and watching those expectations and past experiences tumble together does inform how to explain (or adjust) mechanics.
I’ve watched a few games in development, and this game’s show has been the most interesting and open. =)
Well, I’m trying to do the extra credit reading assignments to understand how this system works, it’s not like any RPG I’m familiar with, and to be honest I’m not sure if I like how it works, or if the pay off for understanding will be worth the effort.
There are many game mechanics in play here but most of the results of those mechanics seem almost completely open to interpretation and GM whim… I think in the past you called that “a powerful strength of the system” I’m trying to get to the point where I also see it as a strength and not a weakness… I’m not there yet but I’m trying.
My recommendation is to start with the idea that for rolls you get a number of dice based on a rating (maybe modified.) Then you get different results based on a critical, a 6, a 4-5, or a 1-3.
Everything else is gravy.
Imagine players saying “Is there a way we can do this?” and pulling out a system to address the need. That’s what most of the rules are. Elaborations, mini-systems, and variations for when you want more mechanics to resolve situations.
We can talk about the intricacies of different aspects of the system, but they are optional.
Get a handle on the down time cycle, get an idea of how you could handle a few levels of complexity for stuff they try to do on a heist, and try it out. See what parts are annoying in play, and see if the system has answers for that already.
One thing I love about the system is I can think of the circumstance and then suggest mechanics based on that. So I could bring in Aliens and Predators and not have to worry about statting them up; instead, I just have to figure out, when the moment comes, how controlled the circumstances are and what consequences for complication or failure might be if they clash.
Anyway, my recommendation is to think about how you want to run a game and focus on what you want to do, and get into it. That’s a far better foundation for understanding the game than wading through a lot of rumination and dialogue, ESPECIALLY since there has been so much change to the system (so some past issues are not the same now anyway.)
Yeah. What Andrew said. 100%.