Action Descriptions
Here’s a sample of the Actions in the book. I’ve re-written the descriptions with an emphasis on showing how the actions tend to overlap and are less rigid than traditional RPG skills. Let me know what you think!
EDITED (a revised version based on Duamn and Jamie’s feedback):
http://onesevendesign.com/blades/blades_actions_preview_02.pdf
I might sound like an assh*le, but:
I love the actions descriptions but don’t like the clarifications at all. Implying positions on the action description might get counter-intuitive and play against a “fiction first” dynamic that I believe BitD aims for.
Also I don’t like the related actions much. I wish I could read a fully explicit paragraph at the end that says something like this post “actions tend to overlap and are less rigid than traditional RPG skills.” Even a cool situational example with several actions coming into play, like the teamwork example in the Dimmer Sisters cellar from old versions.
It makes sense to me but I’ve embraced the fiction first aspect of games whereas others might indeed think of the examples more as limitations to actions. I’d be in agreement with Duamn that a ‘how the actions flow together into a cohesive mass’ would help people immensely.
I revised the pages a bit based on your feedback. Hopefully this helps convey the example nature of the text.
http://onesevendesign.com/blades/blades_actions_preview_02.pdf
I partially agree with both Duamn and Jamie, but I think that the game can accomodate both approaches: some people (like my players) find this more structured definitions of actions less confusing, while others prefer to leave them less defined and freeform.
As suggested, an explict paragraph and some directions\examples would really help people to understand that you could tailor these two approaches to your preference without losing the fiction-first aspect of the game.
Ah yes, the grand power of an italicized, indented paragraph. It looks real good!
John Harper I can Wreck someone in battle?! Oh boy, my Savage Cutter might as well take those dots out of Skirmish!
This really useful. It helps me grok how the systems work together, particularly around judge if an action will be less effective. Also, Action selection has frequently been a point of misunderstanding for my players that I’ve had to work through. These examples are great way to show how the system weights different fictional approaches against player characters strengths and weaknesses.
Yeah, Blaze, what I’m trying to convey is that Skirmish is better, but it’s not the only action that can be rolled in a fight. If you want a string of desperate actions, though, maybe Wreck is the way to go for you. 🙂
So Skirmish will be you going all Zorro on the duel while Wreak is ripping off your shirt, lowering your head and charging eyes-closed while punching whatever crosses your way.
Yeah, that’s good, Duamn. I’m writing examples for all the major activities (fighting, infiltration, socializing, etc.) with various actions, positions, and effects — so hopefully that will be the proper companion piece to this one.
I like how you’re taking the problem of “what do I roll?” fairly head-on. No matter how broad or narrow an action/skill/trait is, there’s always edge cases that come up in play and it’s nice to see that called out here.
Those examples seem clear to me and explaining the overlap is useful for both players and GM. I’m looking forward to seeing the play examples as that Dimmer sisters ‘break in’ example was what really showed me the flow of the game and how the different actions, positions and effects ran into each other.
I really like the examples and overlaps. If I’m going to nitpick, this description of prowl is coming off more stealthy to me instead of stealth + athletics. That may just be because I picture people running across rooftops at night like in Crouching Tiger which seems like stealth to me. Without the other description, people may miss prowls use as the general athletics ability.
In character gen, the difference between study and survey was least obvious to the players (and these bled a little into hunt) – but in play it became more obvious, and that if fictionally appropriate most actions could probably be used
They way I always interpreted it was that Study is about knowing or reading, Survey is about seeing or noticing. In D&D terms (and oversimplifying a bit), Study is your Knowledge check, Survey is your Spot check.
I like the setup but I have to admit that I don’t find the use of Finesse for handling vehicles to be entirely intuitive. I don’t know what fits better, however.
I LOVE the references to powered by the apocalypse moves in the descriptions. lovely tip of the hat.
The layout is a winner for me too. I think this page will be printed in A3, laminated and referenced profusely at my con games when folks ask ‘hey, what exactly can I do with X action?’
I really like this. I think it makes things much clearer.
I have explained to my players in need of the distinction that you tend to STUDY an item and SURVEY a location.
Is it bad I went the opposite way. I ask my players to explain why an action would use one or the other Stat instead. So rather than say Skirmish is for fighting, if a player goes, “I’m attacking him using the chemical bomb I souped up earlier with the vials of stuff I have,” I allow them to attack using Tinker instead.
🙁
I do that too Tobie Abad, but I think having these in place helps when there’s not a clear picture one way or the other, or when you might have a player trying to cheese the system.
True. I guess I was just worried I was doing it wrong.
Yeah, Tobie, you’re doing it correctly.
I’m trying to show with these examples that Skirmish isn’t the only action for fighting. That’s kind of the whole point.
It’s like this.
“When the Red Sash runs at Silver, I take out a chemical bomb, set the fuse to no delay, and throw it at her from behind.”
“Cool. Sounds like a Tinker action, yeah? Risky position, I’d say — better set that fuse just right so you don’t hit Silver too.”
or
“The Red Sash rushes you, her blade arcing toward your face.”
“I throw a chemical bomb at her.”
“Okay… but, like, she’s cutting you in the face. Right now. What are you doing about that?”
“I’m using a bomb. I’m Tinkering.”
“Okay, so she cuts you in the face and you explode the bomb right on top of you both?”
“No, no… I want to hit her before she hits me, or like roll back out of the way… oh, that’s not Tinkering is it?”
“No. Not it’s not.”
“Yeah. I’m Prowling out of her way — rolling back into the hallway and tossing the bomb behind me as I go.”
“Gotcha.”
What matters is what the character is actually doing. In the first case, Tinkering with the bomb is the action that’s happening, so they roll Tinker. In the second case, it’s a matter of physical conflict — a sword attack and an evasion — so Prowl is rolled. Notice, too, how Skirmish would be awkward here, as well. Blocking the sword attack and engaging in close combat with the chemical bomb would be bad for the PC, too.
There’s only one rule to actions: You roll the action that matches what the character is doing. The player doesn’t “use Tinker” to fight. If they tinker with a mechanism, they roll Tinker. If they scramble away from an enemy to create an opportunity to throw something, they roll Prowl.
Roll the action you’re doing.
To do it, do it. Yeah?
Oh thank heavens I’m running it right.
The updated sheet actually helps me understand just how fiction first it is and how much more flexible it is, but it actually raises another question / concern. Based off the more explained sense of flexibility in skills doesn’t this devalue Rook’s Gambit as the slide’s skill? You’re paying 2 stress to roll a better skill which requires you to fictional reposition yourself anyways when seemingly the nature of the action rolls is that you should just reposition yourself that way in the first place.
Rook’s Gambit doesn’t require anything except 2 stress. The part where you say what you do isn’t repositioning, it’s just color. I can revise that text to be more clear.
And in any case, without Rook’s Gambit, you can’t roll Sway when you stab a guy.