So, Gather Information. I was allowing characters to ask one question before a heist, giving them a chance to either collect easy information or make a roll to get more difficult to access information, or to set something up before we get to flashbacks. Just one item per player.
However, the official game setup calls for the plan and the detail, then engagement and on you go. So I am inserting a step that is no longer there. We were talking about that here, and John Harper pointed out “gather information” has become a down time action. So the question became, is a down time action the only time gathering information can happen? John said:
“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.”
https://plus.google.com/+AndreaParducci/posts/aoVAyHEw7nJ
So I thought we were in a spot where getting one question/action right before the heist was an artifact of a previous iteration that was no longer in practice, since it is no longer mentioned in the quick start.
But then I hear this:
“Gather Info is allowed at any time, not just downtime. I thought we established that a few days ago.”
https://plus.google.com/106707833102836285495/posts/HKCerpSShER
So now what I’m thinking is that the official stance on that is that I can allow players to send their characters on brief fact-finding missions of a day or two whenever it makes sense in the fiction, like before a heist if it is not thrust on them with huge immediacy. That’s not something that falls into the formal beginning structure of the heist, but it CAN be done without burning a whole down time action, and it is something that can be done at my discretion any time it seems appropriate.
The official down time action would be more for filling clocks for bigger investigative processes, or gathering more comprehensive information on a target, or rooting out who is planning to move against the crew; bigger stuff.
Does that seem like a reasonable way to interpret what I’m hearing?
.
Yes.
That’s close to how I do it, with the caveat that often we’ve done downtime info gathering to set up/find the next score as well – don’t underestimate the value of being able to add a die by involving a friend (while you can involve a friend anytime, it’s only worth an extra die during downtime) and buying up better results with coin.
Gather information is another “problem” I had, with the game structure.
Also, done in the downtime (in which maybe the crew still don’t know much of the future requests of their patrons) I feel like it’s done it in the “wrong time” .
Andrea Parducci
Why is it a problem?
Obviously the PCs will only gather information during downtime if there is something they want to know about at that point. The game is not supposed to be all about other people giving the crew jobs.
Mike Pureka True. But that is the only moment I see “gather information” mentioned in the quickrules. Then, the rules says to start the job with almost no scenes of PCs preparation – on the contrary, they choose the plan in a short list of plans, they provide a single detail, and BAM! they are in the middle of the action. These specific structure let me think there is no time for “free roleplaying” in the middle. (and here I return to the “boardgamey” feeling I have when I play BitD*)
Actually, I’m letting the players to gather informations almost all in flashback scenes (men, in a mission we play about 70% in the past G with flashbacks – and 30% in the present… 😀 ).
I’m curious to understand what other GMs are doing. As I see, this is an issue that others are feeling.
*as I said before, I love that feeling in BitD, but this makes unclear for me when ai have to rigidly follow the proposed structure, and when I have to go “freeform” with classic GM on-the-fly storytelling.
I think you are reading it wrong. The game tells you to jump right to the action after the PCs have chosen a plan and provided a detail. That is correct. At that point, you should cut straight to the action. This is to prevent the PCs from dithering over details of their plan. But in the very section on “the detail” it says:
“When you choose a plan, you provide a missing detail, like the point of attack, or social connection, etc. If you don’t know the detail, you can scout it out or gather information in some other way.”
That’s pretty cut-and-dried to me – the PCs are not only allowed but practically required to gather information prior to launching their plan.
Even the “Starting the game” page says that you start with a conversation with Baszo, not by “jumping straight into the action”.
The way I’ve played is that Gather Information in downtime is for stuff not directly related to a heist: what does this odd dried heart wrapped in rune covered oily rags do? Or what are the Lampblacks up to? How do are they pulling in most of their income? Where and when do their drug shipments come in?
During a heist for gathering info related to the heist then you can just use flashbacks and normal rolls to gather information.
I think it’s super relevant that PCs be allowed to gather information to set up their detail for their heist – if you you are doing an infiltration, for example, you might discover the existence of a secret entrance that would give you an advantage on the engagement roll if you use that as your detail as opposed to ‘I guess we go over the walls’.
I’m with Colin Fahrion on this one. The Unrecommendables used Gather Information to track down the source of illegal leviathan blood in the neighborhood from session one. Later they used it to try and get some blackmail material on a bureaucrat. I just never equated that to the questions for scouting a heist.
Mike Pureka Another nice thing is that the one question each they ask gives me directions for how they want to approach it, and inspires me to lay down groundwork really fast that will likely be useful to them (instead of working in my head alone.)
Sometimes there’s a great question that inspires an approach I wouldn’t have thought of; that’s when things are firing at their best.
Mike Pureka The rules basically explain how to handle this: “When you choose a plan, you provide a missing detail, like the point of attack, or social connection, etc. If you don’t know the detail, you can scout it out or gather information in some other way.”
So either the players just say “we know they have a secret entrance which we know has to be by the docks so we are going to shadow one of their gang members there” which is a perfectly good detail to start a heist even if it’s never been stated that they have a secret entrance. I often even just let players fill in details such as on a recent heist the detail my player used was “my drug dealer connection actually works at their drug den so they are going to let us in.”
Or if you wanted to make it more of a big deal to find the secret entrance you could create a linked plan with a minor operation to find the secret entrance which then rolls into the main operation to get in. Or if you want just have them make a roll as there is no reason players can’t make rolls outside of heists.
Part of what keeps me from feeling confident about Blades in the Dark is this odd rhythm where the game feels like it is open to use as you like, using the rules as a toolkit to attach to the fiction as is useful.
Then the game seems to snap shut and you’re supposed to follow the rule procedure in a rigid way at other times.
Sometimes I get whiplash.
Mike Pureka Thanks for your posts. About this: “… I think you are reading it wrong … the PCs are not only allowed but practically required to gather information prior to launching their plan.” sure, I understand this point / part. But the great need for informations is well beyond the initial “hint” to build the plan.
Take this (obviously dried to minimum) example.
Batzo: You need to rob the Ark, containing a sacred robe, inside the Dojo of the Red Sashes.
Players: We want to make an infiltration, not a direct attack, ’cause we know R.S. are very good with their swords.
They search for info. They find out that there’s a tunnel under the Dojo, connected to the main water canal.
Now the mission starts!
They arrive to the tunnel with a friendly gondola.
They walk into the tunnel, then I say:”You see a magical symbol on the tunnel ceiling! Damn, the R.S. put these symbol as a magical alarm on every entrance!” (my 1st mission danger).
The players, complaining: “Ehi, I said we should investigate for the alarms, then for the numbers and type of the guards, I wanted to stay 3 days studying the watch turns, I wanted to find out what is hidden in the Ark, I wanted to search weakness of the R.S. boss” etc.. etc. etc.
In a “classic” RpG, I should had played all those things, days of plans, planifications, PCs watch the enemies etc. Then, finally, the mission. Here, the game is telling me “PLAY!”.
So, I do! Now the players are inside the tunnels, ad OF COURSE one of them starts with “Ehi, OF COURSE I studied their alarms in the past days!” aaaaand, here the Flashback is coming!!
Then, when they pass the alarm, they are in the Dojo garden. I say “Guards are coming”.
Of course, one of the player says “Ehi, I surely know something about their movements, so we can easily try to avoid them!” aaaaand, here the 2nd flashback!
Then, they are inside the Dojo, and when I tell them they are near the Ark, and they feel a weird mood around them, one of the player surely says something like “Ehi, I would had studied this Ark thing in the past days! No way I’m here with no clues!” aaaaand, 3rd flashback is coming!
Etc. etc.
As I said before, because the game “cuts” the investigation and planification phase, in my session was pretty common that the players was forced to play a lot in the past, to “getting informations”.
Can you understand what I’m trying to explain?
Yep; And I think you’re being waaaay too friendly with them. “How did you know there were alarms? That sounds like a bit of a reach. That’s going to cost you a stress. Still want to do it? Okay; Make a roll.” And the like. It’s not ‘punishing’ them for how the game works, because frankly, there’s no good way for them to find this stuff out. It seems like you’re giving them way too many chance to GET info. You can say “Of course I knew the name of this guard!” but that doesn’t make it reasonable, right?
I feel like the stress is a handle to keep a mutual sense of what’s plausible. If that plausibility gets pushed and characters claim they did some really detailed or unusual prep, then it costs them stress, more stress for more esoteric flashbacks.
I think that’s a good way to structure flashbacks, because for obvious stuff you don’t want them bogging things down to detail ahead of time, it’s free. But the more they try and abuse it or coax win buttons out of the mechanic, the more stress it costs in addition to rolls, so there’s a down side to pushing too hard for overwhelming advantage.
“How did you know there were alarms?” Well, this is the target of players request of informations. They make a flashback in which they are in a scum tavern, asking to other thieves (maybe some double-cross R.S. too) “what are the protections blocking the entrances of the Dojo?”. I can’t see nothing difficult or unrealistic in this flashback. So, I feel it’s a 0 stress request.
If one of the player said instead “Ehi, actually I’m the paramour of the R.S. boss, of course she told me about the alarms, so I can enter in her roon at night ;-P” Well, THIS is a pricey set of narrative control, so I’d say 2 Stress for this feedback.
What you think about that?
Why would random people at the tavern know that stuff? Do they know that stuff about the PCs hideout? If they don’t, I don’t think that information should be available to the PCs easily either – you need to assume that the other factions are competent and active, not just “dungeons” for the PCs to rob.
It’s not (just) about how much narrative control the PCs use in their flashbacks, it’s about how much sense it makes. Blades is all about making the most of partial information and wild circumstances – this is why there’s an engagement roll, this is why Desperate actions are worth XP, etc.
Maybe this is a fundamental disconnect in how we think the game is supposed to work. For me, the PCs going in with questionable information and making the best of it is how it’s supposed to work. The game doesn’t force that, however, it’s up to the GM to frame the fiction so it makes sense.
So, how much difficult should be to simply find the information to simply start a mission plan, in your game sessions? How many rolls? How many clocks?
Also, the PCs are thrown in the action, so if you say the useful informations should be more difficult to find, then I feel they’ll play flashback time for more and more time than actual mission time…
No clocks for mission start information. You tell me what kind of info you want and how you are getting it, we discuss, and you make a single roll for that action, and find out what that action would tell you. If other PCs want other info, they can do the same thing. But it’s all “top level’ information. You can’t find out patrol patterns inside a building. You can’t find out ‘details’ of an alarm system. Indeed, you’ll be lucky to find out that there is some sort of alarm system. Because how would you find that out? It’s not exactly the topic of conversation at the seedy tavern “Yeah, when I broken into the Red Sashes’ temple last week, I…” is not a conversation that happens.
So no; I don’t mean “information is harder to get without using flashbacks” I mean “A lot of that information is going to cost you stress to gather in flashback, because you had no way of knowing you needed to gather it.”
So to go back to your earlier example:
Bazso: I need you to rob the Red Sashes’ dojo
Players: Okay, we’re going to do an infiltration plan
GM: Right. What’s your infiltration point?
Players: Dunno. I guess we’ll have to case the joint.
GM: Okay; Tell me how you do that.
Players: We’re going to lurk discreetly around the premises and see if we can find any other potential points of entry.
GM: That sounds like you are Surveying the area. Go ahead and give me a roll.
Player: I got a sucess
GM: Great; You spend some time lurking around the Dojo, and poking and prying into dark corners, and you turn up a seemingly not often used tunnel that connects to the canal.
Players: Great! That’s our detail! Can we study the guard patrols?
GM: No, there aren’t any guard patrols visible there. You’d pretty much have to be inside to get that info.
Players: Can we check it for alarm systems?
GM: Not without going in and risking tripping them.
GM: Okay, you make your approach via gondola to the tunnel…
GM:
GM: and you are creeping down the passage when you spot a glyph marked on the ceiling.
Player: Of course I’ve studied their glyphs in the past days!
GM: How did you even know this disused passage had glyphs, let alone which ones to study? That sounds pretty implausible. If you want to roll Attune in a flashback, you’ll be looking at two stress just to make the roll. And if you blow it, this whole situation may be a lot more dangerous.
Player: Uh, maybe not. Let’s just deal with it in the present.
GM: Okay. Give me an Attune.
Later
GM: Sounds like there are some guards up ahead.
Player: Of course I studied their patterns in the past!
GM: Oh really? How did you do that without getting inside the compound? Sounds like two stress.
Player: Hmmm…
I think you need to remember that even if the PCs have a good situation for a flashback and you don’t think it should cost any stress, the PCs still only get a ROLL; They don’t automatically get any information. And failing those rolls in flashbacks still has consequences. It’s entirely possible to make the situation in the “now worse by failing a roll in a flashback.
Mike Pureka solids like you fall way on the other end of “Say yes or roll the dice” than I do. If players said they spent time studying the runes I’d likely ask how they knew but their answer could be something as simple as “the Eels are all Skovlan so I know they would probably use Skovlon runes.” I’d allow this even if we never stated what the Eels background was. I encourage players to come up with interesting reasons why they would know things rather than just tell them they couldn’t know that. This method encourages more co-narrative play and makes my job as a GM easier as it encourages the players to build details for the world.
Colin Fahrion
I don’t think that sort of thing works as well in Blades as it might elsewhere. Remember – different games should be run in different ways.
But if you want to let them do that sort of thing, you shouldn’t then turn around and complain when that sort of thing leads to things you don’t want.
And besides – the players CAN still ‘roll the dice’ – I’m not telling them ‘no’, I’m telling them ‘that sounds farfetched, so pay some stress’.
Blades has a mechanism for dealing with this sort of thing. So you should use it, instead of playing however you play in. I feel like this is some sort of weird situation like someone saying ‘I heard all about how awesome Burning Wheel is for resolving social conflicts, but I just let me players RP them all out and nothing has changed! Something is wrong with Burning Wheel!’
Mike Pureka I think you need to remember that even if the PCs have a good situation for a flashback and you don’t think it should cost any stress, the PCs still only get a ROLL; They don’t automatically get any information.
Yeah, absolutely. I do.
And failing those rolls in flashbacks still has consequences. It’s entirely possible to make the situation in the “now worse by failing a roll in a flashback.
Of course!
However, getting informations in flashbacks can happen in lot of ways. For example, they could wait for a R.S. guard going away the Dojo, then take him into a backstreet and start scaring/menace him out of his pants! If they succeed, they could reasonably got the info (and the target stays quiet, too afraid to report the thing), if they “succeed but…”, maybe they got info AND the guard reported the thing, so there are new surprises in the present. If they failed, they got no info (or maybe misleading ones) AND the enemy is waiting for them.
Right? 🙂
This is a good discussion!
As far as “rules whiplash” — yeah, that’s a thing that can happen, especially when learning a new system and especially when the rules are shifting during development.
Early adopters, tighten your neck-braces. 🙂
It’s not so much when the rules change within the system, more when the system expects you to use rules with a light hand here, but be strict there.
I don’t feel nearly the freedom to interpret and be flexible with applying rules in downtime that I do in a heist, for example.
There’s flexibility in how and where to use clocks, and how to set up challenges, and interpret complications and so forth.
Then for giving out coin, or applying heat, or ending a character’s career with Trauma, or the process of reducing stress, the game drops down to one channel for how it can be done.
Just a feeling I have. Trying to put a finger on where that itch is in my mind. I figure we’re way too far down the path for shifting rules around now, you’ve got to release the game someday. =)
I’m not sure that some areas of the game being really strict and other areas being really lenient is any sort of a design flaw though.
You look at D&D (yeah, yeah, fine, I could pick another game, but this one everyone knows). Attack rolls are really strict. But ability checks are often really fluffy – “Sure, a total of 18 on your strength test sounds good enough to force the door”. No one in D&D every argues that, say, how much XP you need to level up should be something the GM should play fast and loose with. (Sure, some GMs dispense with XP entirely, but that’s a different tack.) But then there are social skills.
So. Maybe a little more guidance on which places the GM is encouraged to be interpretive is in order, but I don’t see any problems with a dichotomy, really.
I think of it like a circle containing flexible rules in the middle, with stricter “boundary rules” at the perimeter. We can mess about with the mechanics all we want inside the circle, but when we hit something on the boundary, something definitive happens.
Like when you play Basic D&D. You can mess about with the dozen rules and rulings to resolve dungeon exploration, but when you get 4000 xp, your elf levels up. That’s a hard rule on the boundary.
(cross-posted with Mike. ha!)
Yeah, I’m not saying it’s wrong or bad. I’ve just noticed the shift back and forth affecting my rhythm and style, and the players feel it too.
I don’t have the energy to unpack it further.
Thanks for talking about it, Andrew.
I make the majority of the downtime gather info rolls for our group. I’m the gather info monkey (have the lurk special ability that adds a die to just that). They’re mostly done to get information about what other gangs are doing. Each other gang has a clock that they’re working on (one at a time), we can see it and see how big it is and watch it slowly progress, but we won’t know what they’re doing if we don’t do downtime gather info rolls. Also, last session we had a contract out from Mr. Higgins, the demon whose attention we attracted from a heat and consequences roll. He’s taking over the city slowly and he wanted us to kidnap the boss of the Crows (name not coming to me at the moment. I rolled a critical on the gather information roll for a detail on a sneaking in plan and we started the action after having made our way up the building, ready to break in through a window with her sleeping in the next room. If I hadn’t rolled so damn well but still succeeded or got a 6 or something (as has been more common in the past), we would have got bonuses on the engagement roll. Actually, if I had rolled a 6 on the gather information roll I would have paid to up it to a crit. You can’t do any of that if you’re gathering info outside of downtime. Downtime gather info rolls are where it’s at.
If the players want especially detailed information, there’s always the option of spinning it off into a score in its own right.
I’m with Andrew Shields said here (and in the past), of course. To sum it up in a couple of words, I’d love more “structure” even in the mission phase.
I had other BitD sessions. Trying to following Mika/John suggestions, I tried to avoid to create a simple “3 clocks” mission, and let the things more “wild” as a “traditional” RpG, so single actions to dispose a single guard, then single action to picklock THAT lock on THAT door etc.
That kind of game was quite “broken”, because with the (unique) mechanic we have, complications, stress, worse positions, arise a lot, throwing the character in a well full of shit.
Also, with the great difficulty for removing stress and bigger difficulty for removing 2+ level harm, I felt those missions like a Cthulhu game ;-D (ie. 3/4 characters mad, 1/4 dead, maybe 1 barely survived…).
And “no”, I didn’t exagerate with rolls and difficulty.
And “yes” I (and the players) tried to apply the teamwork moves.
However, if I’ll have more time to commit to this issue, I’ll open a new post.
I…think that’s working as intended. My first session, things went ‘pretty well’ for the crew and they still needed to recover a lot of stress.
My second session, things went really well, and fundamentally, it was kindof boring, and not a lot of XP was earned.
I think Blades is supposed to be a game in which big ugly interesting failure is an everpresent option. I mean, look at the starting action dots. This is not a game about characters who are going to succeed all the time.