I know that part of the games goal is to change the dynamic of play at the table. (At least that’s what i’ve gathered from listening to some interview with John and the GMing section.)
I think that’s really cool. In practice it can be difficult to implement though, especially if you have ingrained bad habits, or something doesn’t click.
So If there was going to be a blades in the dark primer, a starter example which teaches both the initial rules and the… method, play style or ethos? of the game.
What do you think it should include?
I’ve been thinking a set of player moves and principles might be helpful, in the same style as the GM reference. Just as a start.
I’m writing a lot of examples right now. I’d love to hear everyone’s thoughts on this topic.
My go-to image to help clarify the fiction first nature of the game is to encourage players to think of the rules as a tool box.
There are different rules to attach mechanics to different kinds of problems or opportunities.
So, when you decide what you want to do, then you mechanize it with the rule that fits best.
Lead with the action roll and determining position. Everything else flows out of or around that core.
I’ve found that prompting the players for fictionhelps a lot. As an example, a player might say, “I’m going to roll Prowl” to deal with a situation, and I’ll stop them and say, “Yes, yes, but what do you do?”
Apoc World said it like this, to the GM: “Make your move, but never speak its name.” Making this a more general guideline for everyone involved could definitely work in Blades in the Dark—get people describing their actions instead of their Actions.
A list of player principles would definitely be helpful, but as far as player moves go, I don’t think that’s what you want. If you start talking about moves and tools then you have players looking at their sheet trying to solve problems like it’s a strategy game. Instead you want your players to inhabit a person, who has certain skills and desires. The only question in any situation is how does you character, Wraith the Whisper or Bones the Hound, react to this situation. Only after you answer that question can we talk about what that means mechanically. Eventually the hope is this becomes second nature.
I would like more guidelines to cover common situations that come up in game play. E.g., how to judge positioning in combat, or how to translate the effect of a persuasion attempt into NPC actions, or what it takes to spot a tail and then shake them. I feel that good guidelines can do more to get everyone on the same page than rules can.
The dungeon world guide was one of the best resourses for AW style games I remember reading. Stuff like that. http://apocalypse-world.com/forums/index.php?topic=4996.0
The existing PDF has excellent player advice smatterings through out the text (often as actual play examples). I REALLY like this a lot. Its far better than slabs of rules followed by a chapter of ‘actual play’.
As Andrew Shields says – the game revolves around the action roll – everything else is mechanically additional. Just reading the chapter on the Core System should make this clear to most players.
Though I would agree that underpinning all the dice-rolling conventions are the game principles. The ‘How to use the System’ chapter and the new chapter on ‘Player Best practices’ are wonderful.
Mark Griffin the kind of moves I was thinking of were more, ask another player about how they feel about the situation, or, tell everyone how your character reacts to the NPC and how do we see that in scene.
The kind of guide that I was thinking of wouldn’t be just more examples, although they can help, it would be a more concrete first session, new player list.
A sort of crafted situation that teaches good practice on the games conversation for both GMs and players, before character creation. It would be almost scripted, but leave open space for where creativity occurs.
thoughts everyone?
A phrase I kept coming back to in GMing, and that I’ve since used in other PBtA games, is “the dice will tell you if it’s a bad idea.” Meaning – less time planning, less time picking apart each other’s ideas, more time making bold statements and gathering the dice to realize them.
It’s another way of saying “play to find out what happens,” but it’s resonated better with my table.
There was a lot of confusion in my game around Potency, so I’d like to see some more clarity around that.
Something I’ve seen John Harper do a lot is asking people about the world they live in, and in constrained constructive ways. So for instance if you players says I’m going to sneak through the alley and onto the roof”
He’ll ask questions like “Cool, so are their normally ladders on the walls in allies, maybe for people to do maintenance? If not, do you some some climbing gear stashed on you? Or do you have super strong fingers from your years prying open mollusks on the Dagger Isles, and you just grip tight at every nook?”
It’s these little things that help us define our characters and the world, and do so while still bringing Duskwall to life.
John Perich that sounds cool, would you mind sketching out a moment of play as an example? I like the idea of making bold statements, does it mesh well with assessing and changing position?
Sean Nittner this is the kind of stuff I was thinking of! Very cool. The players would be controlling the difficulty in some ways, which is so different to other rpgs.
Timothy Stanbrough sure!
PC1: We’ll escape through the sewers!
PC2: Are you sure about that? If we get dead-ended in the sewers, then we’re fighting with our backs to a wall. Plus, there’s–
GM: The dice will tell us if it’s a good idea. Okay, so this sounds like a risky Prowl action. Success will net you (does quick mental weighing of factors) two wedges on the “Guards in Pursuit” clock. Roll it!
At a table full of halfway smart people, it is trivial to poke holes in any plan. It’s also contrary to the spirit of Blades in the Dark (and, I’d submit, most adventure RPGs). The efficacy of a plan should only be determined by the outcome of the dice. You don’t debate to prove what might happen; you play to see what happens. The dice will tell us if it’s a good idea.
John Perich, I think that is a good example but I can still see the players behavior balking. Oh, that’s a risky action? What if we do XYZ, will it be dominant instead?
Which is just to say that sometimes you have players that want to hedge their bets mechanically and it’s tough to overcome the that risk aversion that has been reinforced by other games.
I’m not sure there is a silver bullet to this, but showing through play that complications are what fuel the game and create new opportunities, will hopefully give the failure fearing friends faith in the fun.
Timothy Stanbrough, Sounds like folks are helping you get a handle on it? Sean Nittner’s reminder of John’s principle of ‘asking the players and using the answers’, is gold. I use this ALL the time.
The Starting Crow’s Foot Situation (and the advice on how to introduce it) in the quickstart is pretty much the ideal way to structure a session for bridging players used to more ‘tradtional’ systems. It walks the group through action rolls, flashbacks, engagement rolls, clocks and throws the players straight into the action and asks ‘So what do you do?’
The new NPC / Location / Item inspirations are so good for re-incorporating introduced fictional elements. Print these off and have them there on the table for everyone to reference during play. So then if folks get stuck in the conversation when asked a provocative question – the sheet has a few evocative phrases to jazz off.
Sean Nittner and I’m fine with players adjusting their action as more info becomes available. I’m not a perfect camera lens into the fictional world. But what I want to quash is the hair-splitting that goes on between players (not characters) that doesn’t advance the story.
Thanks everyone for the discussion so far!
John Perich I was about to ask the same question as Sean Nittner over changing position. 🙂
This idea of Quashing unproductive play is interesting. I think it flows both ways though. The GM can be an unproductive player by presenting boring obstacles and focusing on trivial elements. The rules do seem to help do away with a lot of that though, just from the implicit structure.
I was considering trialing a time manager in a game. A players whose role it is is to remind everyone when assessing position/effect, if they are under time pressure.
Nathan Roberts I’m not trying exactly to get a handle on the game. That’ll come through play most of all, although good examples help.
I’m more interested in learning new ways for the conversation to flow at the table. I think I can generalise and say that we’ve all had those moments where play springs forth naturally with a sense of discovery. How you go about generating that play is really interesting, and the potential in blades has me really excited.(The effect of rules)
But how do you teach people to use those systems effectively, how do you encourage best practices?
The new player best practices might be good enough, i’ll trial it in the next few games I play. That said.
If you take a look at page 62 of the new quickstart (6), the learning the ritual example is what i’m imaging as a blades primer, or codex.
A set of questions and answers that new players and gms run through. One that leaves open the spaces that are best filled by each role. I think I’ll have a shot at making something like that myself, so i’m looking for input and ideas.
Yup, asking provocative questions and using the answers is definitely a skill worth practicing and encouraging for satisfying Blades (and *world games in general) play.