Ola people. I finally tried (as GM) a couple of BitD sessions.
I’d like to give my impressions, because I’d like to contribute for a better final game. Also, I ask for clarifications, and express my doubts, hoping for a better understanding of the system.
Of course, I already wrote my impressions before (it was the first quickstart PDF, I think), however now I actually played it, so I created an open, modifiable Google Doc, where I can note my “struggles”, requests etc.
If you want to take a look at, check the link. Also, feel free to reply and/or add other interesting points, so John Harper can have them in a single place (I don’t know if there are similar docs around).
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d9svUJ7N557gFsd_jDcNL3CGW2tzjyXNOxEXW3ARJ28/edit?usp=sharing
A lot of those “problems” sound more like “tough decisions” to me. 🙂
Also, must confess, a city full of warring factions of different sorts is the opposite of a boardgames in my mind.
Well, lot of factions which have a +3/-3 value with you, factions that give you a work, or that you have to defend from (with a mission, usually), factions that have a Tier, and a couple of others values… All these can be easily saw as elements of a tabletop game.
Yeah, of course you can “build on” those sterile values, creating some interesting NPC possibly related with some of your PCs, however when you go down again in the mechanical part, the Crew is probably simply doing a mission, overcome a couple of Ostacles/Clocks, trying to push up their Tier, trying to eat terrain from other crews/factions, and trying to accumulate Coin Stash for when they will “end the game” ie. retire their character (these are absolutely “tabletop Victory Points” 😀).
All very “tabletop game”, here.
Well, I say this NOT as a negative thing. Just an observation of the whole game structure. I mean, if you take a “standard D&D master & his standard players”, probably they can’t manage this kind of game (IMHO, of course, feel free to prove me wrong about that). Probably, an experienced tabletop-games group could have less problems to play BitD; maybe they could find difficult (or futile) to describe/narrate the fiction behind the actions and the rolls that they do at the table.
I disagree; If you want to try to be reductionist like that, almost every RPG can be offhandedly reduced to “All the PCs are doing is going into a dungeon, making a some attack rolls to overcome monsters, and trying to get loot and XP” or whatever; It’s an overly reductive stance. Yes, there are a few storygames that you can’t pigeonhole like that, but they are the exceptions and not the rule.
If you want to play an RPG like a “board game” you can. With almost all of them. I don’t think there’s any difference here.
There are lots of things in Blades that are absolutely meaningless unless you use them as fictional elements.
Objectively, these elements push in the “tabletop feeling” direction:
1) Apparently no important backstory that players can explore / discover; the whole “sandboxie” thing. We have no detailed backstory campaign. Of course, other RpGs do it in the same way – like Dungeon World, for example – but those games still have “campaign” elements that BitD are missing, for example the Dangers, the Dark Omens, Spout Lore etc., if you know AW, DW etc.)
Here you are not interested in the secret that the Dark Queen hides in her Throne Room, and the plans she have for the city. You are not here to stop her with heroic deeds. You are here to: 1) make missions trying to overcome the Dark Queen Faction tier OR 2) choose the Dark Queen Faction as friends, and do missions for her. (yeah, I’m oversimplificating that, but I hope you get the point).
2) Players Characters are mechanically very similar each other. A bunch of different skills (however, they are simply a “tag”, a “trapping”, to describe how you overcome the same obstacle), very few special abilities (some are similar each other, ie. every character has a “special armor”, every character has a way to gain or lessen Scale or Potency etc.), equip almost non-existent (sure, I know it’s still important to check what you have and what you don’t, but hopefully you understand what I mean).
3) When you are in action, you roll to “resolve whole scenes”, not to “accomplish the single action”. Often, this way to accomplish things in RpGs dissociate the players from their characters (this happens even in Cortex+ based and other games too, of course).
4) A lot of “management” rolls/actions, made at a different scale than “character scale”, like the Engagement roll, the Payoff, the Entaglements etc.
5) Time is perceived as rigid succession of phases: get some info, take (or generate) a mission, get the pay, stay calm for a while, repeat. Imagine this is Dungeon World: 1 roll for gain a quest, 1 roll to decide how to approach the quest, 1 roll to journey to the quest place, some rolls to resolve the quest, 1 roll to check the overall gains, 1 roll to return in town, 1 roll for mandatory Carouse. No other structure allowed. Repeat ad libitum.
1) It’s a QuickStart. I suppose there’ll be a bit more in the finished book.
2) Well. All d20 chars have the same six stats? Sure, some break the game by being spellcasters, but that’s just poor game design.
Diversity in mechanics is “largely” an illusion when the game is as simple as this.
3) Well.
That’s a difference of opinion. To me and my team, it’s a lot more immersive that we can roleplay out results and just allow the dice to guide us. I’m sure you won’t break too many rules if you manage to wriggle in a few tasks not related to the larger scene goal.
If you prefer task resolution, that’s fine. I just don’t think it’ll change anything as this is very much a scene resolution system.
A solution could be, add some narrative grime. Don’t allow players to roll until they’ve explored options and angles. Let them work for that dice roll, and they’ll wiggle themselves into immersive play.
Take it slow, and you’ll find that you might easily achieve the same feeling of immersive-ness.
4) Well. Yes? It’s pretty much all the old GM work in the hands of the players.
I don’t see Boardgame there. I see less work.
5) Then, break it. Allow them to do shit. If they just engage with mechanics, they’ll miss all of the delicious Duskwall-flavor you can give them.
After next Downtime, let them chill and play out the scenes where they do Downtime. Or base you Downtime on your players actions when interacting with their environment.
In the end.
As with traditional systems, we can see that it is only what you make of it.
I’ve played several games with very restrictive rulesets focused on killing shit in a dungeon and have experienced romance, intrigue and even horror in them.
Put effort into finding the roleplaying, and you’ll have much more fun.
That is true for GURPS as well as Blades.
Rolls in Blades are not scene resolution. They’re called action rolls. Because they resolve actions.
The text is very specific on this point.
True… But, single rolls, like the ones in the back of the Quick Start, don’t those pretty m much resolve a scene that doesn’t have a clock?
But I still stand by them being something else than trad task resolution
Andrea Parducci
Uh. I think you are looking at this wrong:
#1) You’re right. You’re not there to ‘stop her with heroic deeds’. You are looking to profit by her existence (or her demise) because you are thieves. You might care what her secrets are, if it’s worth money to you.
#2) Characters have completely different skills, how are they similar? I guess they can ‘grow’ to be that way if you really want?
#3) I’m with John Harper , obviously. This is not scene resolution here.
#4) Most of those rolls you cite aren’t made on any ‘time scale’ at all. They’re GM bookkeeping. Nothing more.
#5) Check out The One Ring or Mouse Guard for games that uses a ‘turn’ format. They are very good at what they do. They are not boardgamey. Not really sure where you are going here. You’re never TIED to downtime. Even the rules say that you may do multiple scores before downtime, IIRC.
Søren Hjorth
No? Unless your ‘scene’ is one action? In which case, I’m not really sure why you are having a scene at all? What kind of scene consists of a single simple action? Picking a crummy lock?
Fight Scene? Am I missing something or are those not resolved in a single rolls?
EDIT: slightly modified my 1st post. Also, please notice that I have no problems with the whole system structure, as I already said. The “problem” that I addressed in the doc file is that, while the whole system is quite “mechanical” and managed, the entire “mission” part is fully in the GM hand, and the Quickplay actually is giving no guidelines.
About that, I really think that a quickplay SHOULD give those kind of informations, exactly because a master with a new game in to manage, and just a minimal part of the whole thing in his hands, cannot make right decisions about that. If you allow me to make a stupid example, it’s like to give a D&D quickplay, with 1 sample adventure, and a mini bestiary composed of 1 type of Goblin, 1 type of Orc, 1 type of Dragon, 1 type of Dark Knight, and in the adventure simply write:”The 1st level adventurers must enter the cave, overcome the difficult ground, make 2 fights, and return to the village”. If I haven’t an honest “balancing system”, I don’t know if putting 3 Orcs and 1 Dragon it’s good or not. Or if I put 1 goblin alone in each fight is simply dumb…
(again: I never play D&D, it’s just an example)
As Master, during play, I thought: “How many clocks I should create in this mission?” “How many segments should the clocks have, to obtain a challenging mission?”.
When you are mastering the mission, are you choosing something like “I will present 3 clocks to my players: External security (4 segments), then House Guards (6 segments), then difficult Final Lock (6 segments)”
OR
do you start with External Security (4 segments), then, if the players easily overcome it, you choose to add House Heavy Guards (8! segments) AND House Pet Defender (4 segments), then, if the players are sucking hard, you choose to put a VERY easy Final Lock (3 segments)?
Do you keep the mission with the chosen difficulty? Do you eyeball it from the start to the finish? Do you keep adjusting trying to bring the players to the success?
Also, reversing the thinking: if the whole mission is just eyeballed, then why to waste time keeping Factions clocks, background projects, tiers etc. when I as Master could simply eyeball all those things, and simply make some event happen when I say so?
Søren Hjorth
Any fight scene worth having should probably be a clock, IMHO. Unless the opponent is basically just a speed bump who exists for maybe delaying the crew on their way to an objective (with some sort of time-based clock running.). Any opponent worthy of being their own scene should have a clock.
Andrea Parducci
I… disagree. I think giving “balance guidelines” makes the game MORE boardgamey because it becomes less about a world and more about a sequence of level appropriate encounters. Lots of people have this issue with D&D 3/4.
Fights are resolved by resolving actions. If your action finishes the fight, then, yeah I guess it was a one roll fight. But the roll is still resolving the action.
The purpose of clocks is too track progress over several actions (so everyone can see it, rather than the progress being in the GM’s head only).
There are no such things as “fight scenes”, btw, as far as the mechanics are concerned. There are only actions and consequences.
John Harper You wrote:”Rolls in Blades are not scene resolution. They’re called action rolls. Because they resolve actions.”
English isn’t my 1st language, as you can easily notice. So I couldn’t be so good to describe my thoughts. However, take this example: I start a mission, and I tell my players “You arrive to the mansion. You see an handful of guards patrolling the exteriors” and then I draw a 4 segments Clock. Now the player playing the Cutter says “No problem, let me handle this!”, he describes that approach the garden, fighiting every guard he find with his Fine 2handed sword. He rolls Crit, I make my judgements and I decide to check 4 on 4 segments.
Now the guards aren’t a problem anymore.
Time to concentrate on the mansion Security System.
Well, isn’t the Skirmish roll that the Cutter did a “scene resolution”? He didn’t roll to attack a single guard. He didn’t roll to move around the garden. These, imo, are classical character’s “actions”. BitD with few rolls resolve a whole “scene”, then the action is moving to the next “clock”.
I initially wrote in the other post:
When you are in action, you roll to “resolve whole scenes”, not to “accomplish the single action”.
As you can see, I put that on quotes ” ” because I wasn’t talking about the technical BitD terminology, just the feeling I have in game related of the flow of the action.
Andrea Parducci
It’s true that things in Blades are generally resolved with fewer rolls than a 60 minute D&D Combat where you have to whittle down a huge pile of hitpoints, but this is no different from a lot of newer games, and this is generally considered a feature, not a bug. 😉
But you still haven’t resolved your SCENE with one roll. Even if the cutter kills all the guards, the crew is still outside the mansion, right?
Mike Pureka you said “But you still haven’t resolved your SCENE with one roll. Even if the cutter kills all the guards, the crew is still outside the mansion, right?” – While I’ll avoid to use the “scene” term from now on, to avoid confusion, I have to say that in my GM head, addressing the Guards problem (ie. the Guards clock) IS a scene in the game. When the players overcome the Guards, they are now in front of the mansion, and they have to find a way in (Security Sistem clock). The fiction in which they explain how, and they roll for, is another scene.
When they overcome the security, probably we’ll jump the fiction at the main room where the treasure safe is (another clock, the Difficult Safe), so another scene. Etc. etc.
Of course, as already said, maybe (well, usually) the players cannot overcome an ostacle in a single roll, however in those 2 or 3 rolls they aren’t doing the “classical RpG actions” (rolling for move, attack, intimidate a single target, hiding in the shadow, then jumping on an enemy, then shooting an arrow to break a lamp etc.), they are “overcoming the obstacle”, or, as I badly described before, they are “overcoming the scene”.
Andrea, you’re playing the game somewhat differently than I do, and your analysis of the use of the mechanics is unusual to me.
When I play, the characters are jumping on an enemy and shooting out a light, etc. When those actions help to overcome an obstacle that has a clock, then they tick the clock.
I appreciate your feedback, though, and will consider your thoughts as I work on the book.
Right; Generally you can’t just say “I kill all the guards” – all the guards aren’t even THERE to be killed. =/
Yeah, Mike, exactly.
John Harper Maybe there needs to be more verbiage in place to note that, for example, the degree of effect you can have is always limited by the fiction; people seem to be coming away with the idea that just because you rolled really well and have good gear, that you are ‘entitled’ to be able to fill a clock.
John Harper sorry, maybe I can’ t really explain my points… Beacuse even I play that way. You can check the actual play summary that I’m (slowly) writing in my linked doc, to see what really happened in the game.
Still, why you say that? What you feel different? If the Cutter in the example before says he want to go for the guards, blades in his hands, and rolls very good, I HAVE to check lot of segments from the “Guards Clock”. So I HAVE to narrate how he’s fighting well, and killing lot of opponents with just a single “action” he took. Of course, another player could have said “In the meantime, I roll to hit a lamp, because I want to create a distraction”, even this action can help to check some segment from the “Guards Clock”.
How my style of GM is different from yours?
Mike Pureka you wrote “Generally you can’t just say “I kill all the guards” – all the guards aren’t even THERE to be killed. =/”.
Wait. Here we have 2 “points”. About the first “you can’t just say “I kill all the guards”, please remember that I’m writing posts, so I need to explain and describe the things really quickly. So, in our games we have a lot of fiction and narration, simply I can’t be so length, verbose, in my examples here.
About the second point “all the guards aren’t even THERE to be killed”, let me understand how you manage in game the situation with a 4 segments “Guards” clock, a Cutter with high Skirmish skill, armed with a Fine Weapon that surely gives him Potency, and maybe the perk that let him ignore the “Scale” disadvantage. He rolls critic. He can easily check 4 segments alone.
What do you do at your game table? Sorry, but the rules are pretty clear, to me: You have to narrate how he skillfully takes out all the opposition.
John Harper Right. I get it.
But Andrea makes a very interesting question above. Can you limit the amount of effect placed into a clock by narrativly constraining and saying as above, that all the guards weren’t even there?
Or is it a question of making the clocks far more specific in their designation?
Andrea Parducci No; I think this is exactly the point that John Harper is trying to make. The fiction takes priority, and this game does not have scene resolution. If the crew shows up at the Manor, and there are four guards at the gate, no matter how awesome the cutter is, he can only kill four guards with that action. And unless that’s something like half the guards in the entire house, he can only tick the “guards” clock once.
If you had a scene like the one in The Princess Bride (“the palace gate is guarded by… Thirty men!”) and if that represented all the guards in the house, then maybe he could tick the whole clock, but otherwise, you have to abide by the fiction first. If only 25% of the guards are there, you can’t kill “all the guards” and therefore, you can’t tick the whole clock.
You are absolutely not required to check a lot of clock segments. But you’re right that you are required to narrate how well he fights.
Edit: Similarly, if there are no guards present, shooting out a lamp won’t tick the clock either, because the guards won’t notice. This is the same reason the crew can’t tick the “guards” clock from the safety of their HQ.
I think this is not coming across as clearly as we’d like.
I have some thoughts on this. I know it is very long and I don’t expect everyone will read it, but this touches on a number of issues for me. Yes, Blades in the Dark has some board-game elements. What is surprising is how mastering them shifts their use. Yes, there’s a lot of abstraction in the rules. Once you customize your style they support as much or as little detail as you want. And ultimately, I want to explain the gold in the core of this game that makes it worth the bother to me.
I struggled with running Blades in the Dark at first, and one of the things that HAD to change before I could use the rules instead of feeling used by them was deciding when they were used. Instead of saying “When this happens then these rules apply” I shifted to saying “This is happening, which rules will I use?” The difference is subtle but important.
For example, let’s say they are sneaking in and there are some guards in the way. I can do lots of things if they decide to take on the guards, to wrap system crunch around the narrative action (which remains at the center.)
* They might try to sneak around or trick the guard. Give them a chance to make a single roll for an action that makes sense to all of us, and if successful that ticks off a segment of the guards clock (no matter how well they do).
* They might all pounce on the guard and commit violence. That could be a single roll to tick off a segment of the guards clock, and every round they do not get a success or the success is complicated, the leader of the action must accept or resist an injury of a magnitude I decide based on the fiction; he’s got a sword, so probably a medium level.
* One of them might take him out; a single action roll (several actions make sense here so the player chooses a favorite) and success ticks a segment on the “guards” clock, but failure to take the guard out clean (a complicated success or failure) leads to injury AND starting a 4 segment alarm clock they’ll have to defuse or outrun as it gains 1 segment each “action” phase until they’re out of the area or quiet things down.
* A shooter might take him out lining the shot up with the tolling of the clock tower bell and trying to keep anyone from hearing the blast. If there is failure or success is complicated, then that starts an alarm clock with four segments, and the guard may survive if the shot is a failure.
* In a smaller installation, they could cause a ruckus, then attract all the guards to one location and take them out by sword and flame. I could take the “Guards” clock with its 6 segments and spin it out into 3 clocks of 4 segments each from the 3 guard zones, and they could lunge into battle and fill clocks as best they can through violence, ambush, sniping, and whatever.
In other words, instead of saying “How do the rules tell me to handle this situation?” I can say “What rules do I want to apply to make this resolution the best fit to the fiction?”
I totally agree with Andrea Parducci that there is a board game feel to what’s going on. Lock-step stages and actions with mechanized results in down time, abstracted rolls in the missions, and a very constraining feel to how some systems interrelate and abstract. It is difficult to align expectations on this with the players: when do they have to role play through conversations and when do we just want a snippet to get a sense of what’s going on so we can mechanize and resolve the situation?
One thing that I love about Blades in the Dark is that it is intentionally designed to scale how much mechanics resolve. GMs are to pay attention to the players; if the players want to make a big deal of it, make it a heist, build in a pile of goals, and work through it with high level of attention. If they are less interested, set up a clock or just handle some dice rolls. If it is perfunctory or automatic, sometimes just handle it in the background without any rolls involved at all (like standardizing stress regained and coin earned.)
This is not a bug. It is a feature. When you begin, you ask “what do the rules tell me to do here?” Ideally after some play you get to the point of asking “what rules do I want to use to resolve this situation?”
A clock looks simple, but you can use it lots of creative ways. If I want to split a clock out into three clocks, I can. If I want to say success on a single roll (no matter how great) fills in one segment, I can do that too. You can make resolving a segment its own action, or risk a clock blowing up into multiple clocks if directly confronted instead of obliquely engaged. You can abandon a clock that no longer matters because of a tactics shift, and you can force characters to take or resist conditions for the duration a clock is active. You can change what a clock represents from one thing to another, to keep some segments filled, if circumstances shift.
The same flexibility is in place for what happens on complicated successes, or what conditions a hapless character faces when things go wrong.
The players have opportunity to make suggestions or protest and appeal the decision, and I’ll be open and flexible to that, but my job is to propose workable system for them to interact with to firm up and support the fiction.
The game really sings when you can transition from “How do I use this rule correctly?” to “How can this rule help me model a mechanical resolution to the fiction most effectively?”
I confess I have used many rules incorrectly, and there are some I have struggled to understand, and there are some I do not agree with. Putting that aside, there is a solid gold core in this game, and it’s worth the bother because of what it lets a game group do.
By focusing on fiction, you don’t need stats for bad guys, or defenses, or monsters. You can get by just fine with sketched out floorplans, you don’t need maps or detailed environments. There is dynamic engagement with other factions, so in the renewing cycle of heist-downtime-heist or some combination (two down times and a heist, or two heists in a row, etc.), complications will both give you long-term goals and complicate your ability to pursue them.
That makes this game a super-low-prep adventure facilitator where you can sit down with friends or strangers and unfold adventure in a setting, pulling your expectations into closer alignment as everybody shifts around to accommodate each other in play. Friendly and enemy factions emerge. Treasure is spent and gained. Play forms the crew’s experiences, assets, and liabilities.
The board game elements become skeleton, and you build flesh around them, and they support the game until it is strong enough to move on its own. What’s great about the rhythm of the game is that it builds itself; the GM is not hampered by not having a quest outlined, or not being prepared with spell lists, or not having stats on hand for the monsters in the zoo they want to rob.
You are getting it right if everyone at the table is having a great time. It is worth revisiting the rules and trying to understand them because John Harper is a great designer and has ideas for balance and usage that give you better tools at the table. (And if you gotta house rule, then this is a friendly game that isn’t so interconnected you can’t tinker with it.)
Ultimately your game is going to be driven by the fuel you and the rest of the players bring. Blades in the Dark has some unique ways to thrust structure forward when you need it, and retract it entirely when you don’t.
This is my point of view, and I accept that not everyone agrees with that. I am speaking to why this game is one of the few I run online, why I have stuck with it even when it has frustrated me, and why I think it can unlock game play at your table that other rule systems can’t even if they share the same setting or themes.
Well, I REALLY thought that the whole Clock mechanic should be the main game point. After that, it’s a good ability of Master and players to narrate the action AFTER you see how the action roll went (in the example before, you could narrate the Cutter running from brush to brush, the quick killing the far away external guards – of course, guards inside the manor could be a totally different clock, maybe with different quality, different equip etc. – while I tried to put a single type of “obstacle” for every mission I ran).
If this thought is “wrong”, then I humbly thing that the whole Clock thing lose meaning. So, we could return to a standard “old style” RpG, where different character can attack and overcome single guards, with a single Action, and no need to clock. >> However, this way, you totally lose the reduced – standard – augmented Effects (you have no ticks to do…), you don’t take in account for Fine equip etc.
Ok, let’s change argument:
Let’s say I chose that the manor have the obstacle called “8 segments high level security locks”. How you manage that???
If a player goes up the roof, then try to go in a window, does he bypass the obstacle because “ehi, I don’t go thru those locked doors!”??
I thought that I never have to worry about the “fine details”, about the “I have to draw the whole manor map”, ’cause the Obstacle Clock is the “only” thing/obstacle the player have to confront, ie. I don’t have to describe the whole crew movements etc., simply I tell “now you are in front the main door, and it has a very good lock. How you try to bypass/destroy/avoid it?”
I thought that in game, if they choose something like “We try to pass thru the windows” then they roll Athletic skill (sorry I haven’t the book here for check the correct skill name), and when they fill the 8 segments, they overcome the original obstacle (high level locks).
OR if they choose “We try to lockpick”, they roll tinker skill.
OR let’s suppose that they choose to destroy a manor wall, to breach in with good violence… So what? Here they have to surpass the 8 segments “high security lock” clock? Or I have to create another clock “on the fly”, called Heavy Stone Wall (6 segments)? If the latter, then why I should think about 3 / 4 obstacle clocks in advance? Why to not simply go freeform, and tell the actual situation, then react creating clocks every time they try to do something?
Also, another partially related doubt:
How you manage the team splitting in 2, and wanting to assoult front door AND back door at the same time? Do you keep the 8 segments clock? Do you split the clock in 2 different, 4 segments, clocks? Or do you keep separate clocks for every access door they try to pass?
Ok, I went verbose, however I think all this discussion can be very useful to understand the game mechanic / flow (because I admit I have big doubts right now – and I played and mastered almost every RpG system – traditional and indie).
For me, the heart of the system is not so much in the clocks. I focus on the 3 context levels (they used to be desperate, risky, and controlled), on whether or not you achieve success and how that success is complicated, and the choice between stress and consequences.
The clocks are a useful tool, they are to measure unfinished tasks that are previously known, track healing, track personal project progress, and so on. They are not as central as action rolls and the mechanics surrounding those, because there are many situations where clocks aren’t used but you do use actions, and those actions are in a context, and you may also have to accept consequences.
Clocks are also a neat way for the abstraction of what’s difficult about a heist to reflect on the fiction, and for the fiction to reflect back on the clock. This doesn’t have to be “how many segments does my roll clear” always, but that’s one way to do it.
I feel like when the rules are telling me what to do, then my relationship to them is backwards. It’s more right for me to choose what mechanics to use to let the numbers on the character sheets interact with what’s going on in the fiction.
However, I am often corrected in these parts, and you may find other opinions. =)
I pretty much agree with Andrew Shields , though I think that his brain works in weird ways. 😉 (Read: I don’t think that most of this stuff is all that different from how you would do it in any other RPG, so the gymnastics needed to self-justify it seem weird to me.)
But yeah. Clocks are not the ‘heart’ of the game, they’re just a convenient way to track things when relevant.
Early on I thought clocks were a good way to sketch out an adventure site, but I quickly abandoned the notion. I think it’s better just to note that they have certain advantages and disadvantages, a scrawled list works fine. Then as you need complications or as the characters gain successes, you interpret those in terms of the advantages and disadvantages you dreamed up for the site.
So if they’re up against guards, you noted the guards had high quality gear and each one has a trained bat on a shoulder perch. The characters have to deal with the bat not freaking out and flying off to raise the alarm, as well as dealing with the guard. That affects their planning, the speed of the alarm raising, and potential complications of the bats of other guards picking up on a disturbance their less sensitive human counterparts don’t hear.
I don’t want to have “Leather Guard Patrols: 4 of 4” there, I just want to have the bats to inform the fiction, inform character plans, and interpret results (especially complications.)
Now I don’t assign clocks at all until they settle on a course of action that requires more than a simple roll. If I do assign clocks to a setting, then I intend each segment to be an encounter, and I may tick off segments if they find ways around the obstacle or damage the obstacle’s parts.
Instead a site might look like this:
* Dank moat full of weeds with spirits of thieves who were ritually drowned there trying to pull interlopers in.
* Guards with bat perches on their shoulders, if any bats rouse it alerts the whisper who perpetually drowses in the tower. Faultsworth is their leader, a big fat man who is terrifyingly quiet and who hunts with a strangle noose from a pole.
* Shelyn is the whisper in the tower. She is able to grab one metal post and physically feel the touch on any door knob or lock inside, knowing where it is. She can mutter into the post and her voice will come out of any keyhole in the building she prefers.
* Metal glyphs pounded into every intersection cause confusion, so only those who can attune to them can see clearly which way they actually go out of the intersection.
* The dungeon is a gallery, and each painting has a number of prisoners in it. There is always room for more to join in. There are some super-unpleasant people in there. Attuning may allow pulling one out, at the risk of being pulled in instead (or replacing the prisoner.)
* The bottom vault has a dome ceiling set with fine gems, trying to make a certain set of constellations for an unknown purpose. 12 coin, takes 30 minutes per Coin removed.
–hire them to rescue a prisoner, Amalek, from the Howling Desert painting. He’s the one with long red hair. Get 3 Coin.
So you hire them, and it is up to the players how they get in. Disguised delivery people? Use amulets of protection and swim the moat?
As you get it ready to go, think fast about openings to offer. Is there a renovation in the feast hall and they could pretend to be workers hired for that job? Is there a sloppy drunk fired from security who has a bat whistle that calms the critters? Offer them an “in” and let it unfold.
I don’t think clocks are supposed to be made up in advance. My understanding is that they’re supposed to be put down on the fly as part of the improvisation of the game.
Also, shouldn’t the players have decided how they’re going to get in as the Detail of their Infiltration Plan? It seems like you’re taking one element of the game out of context.
I agree with Andrew here. Clocks are tools, but they’re not required elements that you plunk down in a formal way to mark every challenge. If all you do is face clocks and fill them up with rolls (narrating action as ‘flavor’) then of course the game will feel reduced and board gamey. This is a far cry from the intended nature of the game.
I don’t think a lot of people play Blades (or any RPG) in such a reductionist way, but it’s probably worth it to include a bit more guidance in the book for those that would be tempted to play that way.
I’ll also consider again how I’m presenting clocks. I’ve thought before that perhaps they should only be used as long-term project trackers, but decided against that since they’re such a versatile tool. But perhaps that’s not a bad approach, given how they can be abused for in-the-moment situations. Something to ponder, anyway.
So they make it past the guards, and they get to the maze with the glyphs. I tell them they need to fill 6 clock segments to successfully cross the maze-like expanse to get to the stairs down. If they don’t act as a group, they’ll each have to solve it.
If they have complications, then I’ll sic guards on ’em or alert the whisper upstairs to their presence, which could start countdown clocks until security catches up with them. Also, as soon as they are detected I’ll put in a 4 segment countdown clock for “the stalker” and have the boss with the stranglenoose staff padding behind them soundlessly, grabbing the one at the back or any stragglers at first opportunity.
Of course, if they know of a way in from the moat, then we skip all that unless they try to escape that way. =) If they have a whisper, the whisper might tie into the enchantment and tune to it altogether, so the confusion effect is reversed (as it is for the guards.) Or maybe they get the headband the guards wear under their helmet that protects against the effect, and it’s a matter of a single action roll to figure out a way through the very small maze.
John Harper For what it’s worth, I’d rather highlight the flexibility of clocks and show many ways they could be used, rather than excising them or relegating them to long-term projects.
I’ll try to take some time to read over the sections on clocks and effects and see if I can offer some suggestions.
Mike Pureka Early practice in this community used clocks ahead of time to “prepare” adventures. It’s an artifact of a previous time.
Players talk while figuring out how to get in, that’s not something that happens instantly. Sometimes they set the plan based on the kind of background information they get with the one question/action they do before the heist starts.
I don’t think you realize how abrasive your tone is.
Believe it or not, that’s the cleaned up “I think” and “I feel” version. =/
Still, I feel it is important to note that the game says you’re not supposed to spend a lot of time figuring out how to approach the score, and I feel that is getting overlooked in all your planning. The players setting a plan based on the background information they get is… exactly what I’d expect to happen? I guess I’m not even sure where we disagree now.
In heists past, there might be a process like this, using the above setting as an example.
They accept a job to rescue a guy from this whisper’s creepy dungeon.
* The cutter asks around about guards and finds out there are some dudes with bats on their shoulders and excellent gear.
* The slide asks if there is any sort of high-traffic time, like an upcoming party or something. The GM suggests there is, inspired by the question, and talks about a renovation of the feast hall; a rare occasion where people come and go.
* The lurk checks with his boatman contacts to see if they have any thoughts on aquatic entrances, and he finds out about the ghosts in the moat.
The players talk about what plan they’ll choose. They could go for a deception plan and pretend to be workers and bluff their way in far enough to make a go at the basement. Or they could go infiltrating and try to cross the moat, they could use flashbacks to pick up amulets (or wait a downtime cycle and try to get amulets that way.) [Without time pressures, I’ve had crews back out of a heist, go another direction, and try that heist later.]
They decide to go for a deception plan, they bribe the foreman, and they get their lurk gang hired along with them to get in.
We pick up with them carrying their stuff and crossing the moaning bridge; right away the lurk does a flashback and tries to get himself an amulet to repel ghosts as they’re walking in.
Sounds good!
Huh. I go back to look at the quickstart, and the “Gather information” part is no longer on the planning page. Even when it was there at the very beginning, it was ambiguous as to how it was used.
So really I guess you just toss ’em in with one detail relevant to the plan. I’ve been giving them a “gather information” phase that’s been phased out.
Well, of course there’s nothing that says they can’t gather information – watching some of John’s videos, there certainly seemed to be some of that going on. It’s just not mandatory, I guess? I mean, they need to find out about the score and about their detail somehow? Though that can be ‘delivered’ to them by a friend or whatever, the PCs are also going to want to do ‘self starter’ jobs that are just them doing stuff, instead of being paid/hired/whatever and not all of those are going to come from a tip off.
I suspect the phase got phased out because it didn’t need to be an ‘official’ or ‘formal’ step?
Dunno.
I would think it could be a function of urgency. If you have a job that has to happen NOW, then bam, pick your detail and go. If you have until next Thursday, do some scouting.
I like that the rules and processes have a high level of modularity, and a “gather information” phase would be great for that–and underscore the pressure of time when acting swiftly and blindly.
The main objective is get them stuck in fast, not dithering with the planning. I like the gather information because it’s basically 1 question (and maybe a roll) per player. Some control and background, but hopefully not fatal to the pacing of the game.
Gathering info isn’t a formal step. (It’s on page 18 of the new QS, btw).
It’s hugely valuable to know things, so players will naturally gather info without the need for a formal phase. The only mechanical trick is that gathering info during downtime enjoys the special bonuses from friends and coin.
John Harper If the game group thinks it can only happen during downtime, then it’s harder to apply it if they get a job and go into the heist without a downtime in between. I mean, as presented, it seems you’d need a downtime cycle between getting hired and doing the heist. Is that intended?
I agree with Andrew Shields here – when I see a “downtime action” listed, in my brain, that becomes something that only gets done during downtime. You need downtime to work on long term projects or recover from harm, so it kinda feels like to take the “Gather Information” action, you need to use one of your Downtime Actions.
I was, admittedly, working outside of that as well, but I wasn’t thinking of it specifically as “gather information.”
Actually, I was wondering about the Gather Info downtime action – since Downtime Actions are a finite resource, it seems like a bad idea to spend one to gather info when you could just do more or less the same thing without spending a downtime action by doing it at the start of the next session or whenever the ‘downtime phase’ was over. I guess the additional bonuses didn’t register in my head.
It could be a useful change of pace to expect to spend a coin or hold to get a full downtime, then have people spend one or both actions on gathering information or collecting equipment. But that would be counter to my previous experience of the game; that would add more mechanical playing through prep than I’m accustomed to and give significant benefit in return. (Two down time turns to gather information, for example.)
I guess I don’t really have an opinion on whether it’s better to allow gather information as a brief element pre-heist to frame the action, or to reward the crew for spending an actual mechanized down time to prepare for the heist.
Andrew Shields I read your posts. I wrote a long post (that I lost, damn flimsy G+ notification column…). So, rewritten in a really short way (and that it can seems a little rude toward John Harper , I’m sorry about that, but I really need to externalize my raw feelings):
1) I feel the whole structure of the game is unclear / confused. When use clocks, when do not. When doing single actions… meh.
Also, I absolutely don’t like the idea of letting the players doing actions that, in the end, tick just 1 clock segment. Especially because this is going fully “house rules”, this have nothing to do with all the BitD explained rules ’till now.
2) If clocks are not so central as they seems, the only other mechanic we have in the game is the (really over-simplistic, almost “dull”) standard action roll. And that mechanic (absolutely not different from any standard RpG roll – like a sort of WW Vampire roll) isn’t supported by almost any interesting mechanical addictional detail/modifier (just the Devil Bargain has some importance here, and adding something nice to the metagame). It doesn’t take in account scale, potency, equip, enemy abilities etc. etc. Also the result of the action is fully eyeballed, freeform, I’d say so narrative that I ask why I need rules, or roll dice, I could simply tell a story with my friends around the table. It’s so simplicistic that I could play the whole BitD game with Lady Blackbird system, printed in a single page, and getting the feeling of having more details, more meaning in play, and more “mechanical” elements.*
I feel that all the magic of the PbtA rules is lost here, and nothing new (or different) have taken his place.
* Ok, this is a provocation, but I hope you get what I’m saying.
Again, I hope you can understand what I’m trying to explain. It’s really difficult to put down in few phrases my thoughts.
Andrea Parducci It’s okay not to love every game. Maybe this one is not your style. I know there are plenty of games out there I am not interested in. If nothing else, take the ideas you like best and transplant them. =)
I’m seeing some false dichotomy action here. I don’t think things are quite as black and white and reductionist as you do, Andrea. But I appreciate your feedback, and hopefully the complete text will explain the true nature of this game better than the quick start is currently doing for you.
#1: There’s nothing “house rule” about this. =( It feels like a case of “Jump to the moon” syndrome. You have to be able to do things in the fiction before you can use mechanics to do them – in any game. You can’t say “I rolled a 20 on my athletics check, so I can jump infinitely high” and you can’t kill all the guards if you don’t even know where all the guards are.
#2: I don’t even know what to say to this, since this game has what feels to me like rather a lot of mechanics – even the ‘standard action roll’ has devils bargain, pushing yourself with stress, and assistance on the action and then an equally large pile of modifiers on the effect roll. And that leaves out flashbacks, harm, turf, advancement, and so on and so forth?
I haven’t played a ton of this game yet, but I’m having a hard time getting a handle on your concerns.
Mike Pureka I think the “house rule” is pointing at what I do, when I allow the outcome of a simple roll to fill one segment of a clock if successful.
I don’t think that’s in the rules anywhere, it’s just something I do to address the issue of not wanting to knock out a big chunk of a challenge, but wanting the big clock to still be affected by the individual situation.
Andrew Shields
I’m confused now. What’s a “simple roll”?
My only definition for that term in this game is “a roll where there’s no clock”… so if you are allowing it to fill a tick of a clock, it’s not a simple roll because there is a clock?
Or am I confused?
FWIW, Andrew, your method isn’t technically a house rule, though it’s totally fine to call it that.
I’d say that you’re assessing the effect factors of the simple action and determining that “limited effect / 1 tick” is the level that suits the situation. This is totally within the GM’s authority.
(When the player rolls a crit, or has potency or a fine item, you should probably bump it up to 2 or 3 ticks, but ultimately it depends entirely on the assessment of the fiction. The whole point of clocks is express your assessment in a concrete way, after all.)
So for example there is a six segment clock for “guards.” And the crew happens across a guard in a key location. I would allow them to take out that guard with an action roll. If they successfully took out the guard in that key position, I would advance the “guards” clock by 1 segment, regardless whether they got a complicated success or a critical.
The action roll is about taking out the guard, and taking out the guard reduces the overall guard clock by one, but the level of success in taking out the guard does not allow them to take out multiple segments in the overall guard clock.
It’s a creative use of the clock and basic tools, you could call it a house rule I made up because I don’t think there are any examples of using those tools in quite that way. I feel it is in bounds, however. It’s about interpretation and flexibility.
(I didn’t see John Harper’s reply until after this posted, but I think we both see this as a use of the tools within the context of the fiction.)
(Andrew’s example with the guard, to me, looks like he’s assessing the Scale factor, deciding that the PCs have a disadvantage due to the deployment and numbers of the guards, and reducing the effect level to limited, accordingly.)
Thanks John and Andrew for your reply.
@ Andrew: well, there are reasons why I’m so “hot”, “passionate” about all of this:
1) I loved the whole BitD concept. I was searching for a PbtA-like game to play those kind of games. Specifically, I was hoping to get a good framework to evenlope my personal Eclipse Phase hack. I think that a good set of rules like this ones could make miracles for E.P. setting (while the standard d100 based system is a real pain in the ass…).
2) believe me, this isn’t the main point. I with my 3 friends have $ 175 involved in the kickstarter project, and I’d need to add about $ 70 (?) for the international shipping.
3) I hope my doubts could help to refine (or modify?) the final product, while we are still in a development phase… I did some comment before, but now that I tried the whole quickstart on the field, I can be more specific. Also, I hope that if there are other people actually trying the system, they could express similar (or maybe completely different…) opinions, giving an overall feedback volume. I hope that this can be useful (on the contrary, I could simply have saved hours passed on the keyboard for other activities…).
Also, I can’t remember if I already pointed out this thing or not in the previous posts.
If you play with Andrew’s “rules”, you are encountering more “problems”.EDIT: If I’s play at my table with Andrew’s proposed “rules”, I know I’d encountering more problems with my players.Here’s one: the skills are not equal anymore. Let’s suppose we have the 4 segments Guards clock. What if the Slide player says:” I want to run a flashback. In the past days, I met one of these guards, trying to bribe them, so in the mission day, the guards will watch to the other side, when we enter and exit the manor”. Of course, as GM, I’d say “Very cool, go on!”. He rolls very well, also he get extra effect with a payment of 1 coin (and maybe with previous acquired documents that told him a weakness of the guards for bribing). I look at the effect table, and I agree that he can fill the 4 segments.
Cool! With that flashback, the Slide overcome the Guards obstacle. Now the heroes can enter the manor with no problems.
So, the problem is: why the Slide can make this kind of action, and apply the Critical effect, along with Coin expenditure and maybe cool special ability of him, overcoming the obstacle, while the Cutter have to face the problem that the guards are not in the same place to overcome them with a single well placed high rolled action (maybe, along with friends help, of course, as the Slide could have do in the flashback too…).
You could make the same example with the prowling Hound bringing the whole crew silently along the garden, in the dark, avoiding the whole guards obstacle. He doesn’t have to roll 4 different actions, one for each guard…
Andrea Parducci If you want to talk about how things work because you’re interested in alternate methods of running the game that you might like better, I’m happy to do that.
If you want to convince others that the game doesn’t work as presented, then I’m not really interested in that conversation. I don’t feel like I have to defend the game any more than I’ve already done.
I disagree that that is “skills being unequal” – that is ” skills being unequal in that particular situation”. Great. The slide gets to do cool stuff. How much does that help when there is an angry red sash coming for him with a sword? Skills are now unequal the other way. If you look at it that way, skills are unequal anyway, since prowl is the best way to sneak in somewhere, right?
Andrew Shields The former you said. You told me about how YOU like to run the game (in a way I haven’t think before, ’cause in the book I don’t see that way clearly described), then I replied why I think that way could be badly received at my table game.
If you are happy with the system as it is right now, then good for you! I’m not trying to change your mind, I’m trying to expose all my doubts / concerns – not to you, or other happy players, mainly to the game designer(s).
EDIT: (I edited my post up there, to better clarificate that).
Mike Pureka Mmmm… I’m not fully convinced about that. I felt that the basic assumption is: I present an obstacle, the player(s) chooses the skill to address it. Obviously, sometime some action doesn’t make sense at all (you cand Command a door to unlock itself…). However, even if the Red Sash is charging with the sword, I can’t tell a player “You have to roll Skirmish to address this situation”. I let he tells me “I shoot a sleeping dart before he’s on me (hunt)” or “I quickly run away hiding in a dark spot (prowl)” or “I intimidate him showing the head of another guard that my friend defeated before (maybe command)” or “I destroy his sword using my special Leech armored vanbrace (wreck)” or “In the past I met my friend Freiderich, that works for our crew, and I arranged that now he should be on a nearby roof, with a big crossbow, ready to take the head of this stupid Red Sashes screaming goat (Consort)” etc.
Maybe, as a fan of the character, while describing the world honestly, if I have a specific note that tells me “Red Sashes are good with swords”, then I know that they usually have advantages vs. Skirmish, as the Path of Echoes could have advantages vs. Spirits etc.
However, I’m happy to exchange opinions.
The heart of the matter is understanding if I’m playing right, playing wrong or playing weird.
I would argue that that use of consort is going to cost two stress to even attempt, which means that skill is “less useful” here, and I don’t think you can address that situation with sway at all, so that skill is really unequal. Therefore, skills are already unequal.
Honestly, I’d have some issues with your flashback sway checking the entire clock too – but it all comes down to judgement calls. If you decide to make talking easier or more effective than violence, that is you and not the game.
I don’t see the unevenness, personally. Any character can attempt flashbacks, and if it is something you definitely could have anticipated, it’s likely to be free (though there may be consequences because of the flashback’s outcome.)
Slides can cut people down and Cutters can bluff, the system lets you have cross-functional characters that are broadly competent if you want (or focused more if you don’t.)
A clock for a site or heist can represent “number of encounters to resolve with this sort of problem” and a critical success or extra potent success can get up to 2 and make one encounter not happen because of great success. That’s a way I have chosen to use them.
Andrea Parducci : I think you are overcomplicating things because you are having a hard time wrapping your head around the abstraction of the rules.
An action is a single task or a quick succession of tasks ruled by the same skill.
Anytime you feel that something shouldn’t be resolved with a single action, you can draw a clock. A complex obstacle has a minimum of 4 segments (which technically you shouldn’t be able to fill in a single action, since 4-segments Effects are possible only if you roll a Critical AND you have advantage factoring Quality/Scale/Potency AND the GM feels that your action is so effective to grant the Extreme Effect).
You don’t need to write the obstacle clocks in advance or “balance” them using some mathematical equation: you draw them as soon as you realise that you need the abstraction to mirror the narrative.
You can also break an obstacle in multiple clocks if you feel that there are narrative “stages” in its resolution.
In your guard example: you could simply break the “guard obstacle” in multiple clocks to reflect the fact that there are multiple groups of guards (“door guards” + “inside guards”) or you could draw a single 8-segments clock or decide that the guards are not so important and leave a 4-segments clock.
Anytime an action resolve the obstacle, you fill segments.
If an action avoid the obstacle (from a fictional point) then you just follow the story: maybe your approach leads you to another obstacle, or maybe gives you free way to get what you want.
Basically, instead of counting the exact number of guards and force the character to kill them one-by-one (as you would do in D&D, for example), you just abstract the entire obstacle using the clock.
Effects, Factors, Clocks are all tool informed by the fiction which, in turn, inform the fiction.
Fiction is not the “flavour” to dress the mechanics; the mechanics are there to guide and be guided by the fiction.
PS: I’m italian too, so if you want to discuss more easily about the rules, feel free to contact me.
Yeah, absolutely, I don’t know if there’s an Italian BitD community, however we could catch up and write a couple of posts. So I’ll try to explain even better my concerns.
Sadly, I don’t think there’s an italian community and writing here in Italian would be rude, so maybe if you want to discuss further you could write me on hangout, I already added you!
Thanks, MisterTia86! That’s an excellent summary of the system. 🙂
We use tons of clocks in our games. It doesn’t feel reductionist at all. Leaving a situation and thereby not needing to address a clock is possible, as are new clocks suddenly popping up as is appropriate to the narrative. I like the clocks a lot. We do use almost no gather information rolls outside of downtime (which sees a lot of them) and I’m guessing that’s partly because we didn’t originally realize we could and also partly because countdown clocks will keep ticking while we don’t get stuff done if we do that. But in general, tons of clocks is fun 🙂