These are some of my thoughts in general about how the game might be run, and I’m wondering how other people’s thoughts/experiences compare. This started as a response to Mark Griffin’s post, but quickly became almost irrelevant.
I can’t say that this is universally true, but in my HIGHLY limited experience, John is easier and better as a GM for the Bloodletters than other GMs might be in their games.
I can’t really point to any one thing and say “here is conclusive evidence” but for instance:
1. How often does John actually threaten to inflict harm? I’d guess he’s at least one standard deviation below the mean in this regard. I think he’s right to threaten harm as often as he does, to clarify.
2. The rules say that armor allows you to ignore or reduce consequences. My GM says it reduces harm by one. John said in this episode it allows you to ignore it.
3. Have you noticed how rarely the Devil’s Bargains are “Someone notices: Take +1 heat?” They usually are so much more narratively interesting and less mechanically (or immediately) disadvantageous, like demons or factions taking interest or changing relations with the PC crew. He (and Sean) offer some on almost every roll too. He could have told Stras “I don’t think there’s a Devil’s Bargain to help you Attune here. Sorry.” But he didn’t. Instead he made up something interesting out of left field, and they spent a good few minutes discussing the fiction surrounding that thing.
4. I feel that some GMs are going to struggle with playing fiction first. They’ll play the game more mechanically, moving from one die result or downtime action to the next without much discussion of the fiction in order to get a certain amount of “progression” out of the game. They’ll try to get planning, execution, and downtime all in a session. The Bloodletters don’t do this, and it’s definitely for the best. If a GM runs the game as a checklist, the players will probably gravitate in that direction as well, and the fiction will wither.
4.5. My GM seems to have a tendency to “balance” the game. For instance, he’ll refer to the rules to evaluate the fiction, rather than the fiction to evaluate the mechanical outcome. This is the death of “fiction first.” It also doesn’t “give the players what they earn” when the game is being adjusted (consciously or unconsciously) to remain a consistent challenge for the players/characters. For instance, when a PC gets a crit to acquire an asset in the form of a gang of thugs, the gang leader they were going to attack might be surrounded by his own gang of competent thugs, whereas he wouldn’t have otherwise.
There’s lots of other things I wanted to point out, but my brain is going a mile a minute now. For those who are watching the Bloodletters game, I’m curious what differences you might have noticed between how games of BitD are run for (or by) you and how John runs the game.
I had the distinct advantage of watching up through the Red Sashes’ retaliation videos before I ran anything. I try to ape John’s style of listening in and then riffing, although I tend to err on suggesting possible plans more often than not. I try my hardest to simply offer “likely outcomes”, not “this is a good/bad idea”, but sometimes in hindsight I realize I’ve been caught up in planning right along with my players. It’s also easy to forget how weird Duskvol can be if you’re not John Harper and have it all in your head. 🙂
My NPCs also suffer in terms of characterization because I think I focus way more on trying to get good devil’s bargains or meaty consequences without simply tagging my players with damage/heat. My mind just can’t flipflop back to “immersion mode” that quickly. I tend to GM the situation and the factions more than the individuals.
Adam Schwaninger “It’s also easy to forget how weird Duskvol can be if you’re not John Harper and have it all in your head.” That’s definitely true. I’ve been thinking if I were to run the game I’d want an Occult crew, as a constant reminder to include the occult imagery and situations as much as possible.
“I tend to GM the situation and the factions more than the individuals.” I think that’s fair too. Between judging position and the multiple factors of effect, keeping faction descriptions in mind, offering good Devil’s Bargains and consequences, figuring out clock sizes and narrative descriptions of filled-in segments, and keeping in mind the fiction of the immediate situation, there’s certainly plenty to try to juggle on the GM side that all seem to come before characterization, if you decide to implement them all.
I can 100% tell you that John is a better GM than I am, but he has three fairly large advantages. A better grasp on both the setting and the rules, and more practice. When I first started out I was all about heat and harm, but the more I play and the more I watch John I’ve been trying to make the bargain and consequences more interesting.
For point 2, I’ve adopted the default that resisting harm drops its level by 2 (which in most cases makes it drop to 0), but depending on the fiction I reserve the right to increase or decrease that by 1.
I also dislike what I perceive as balancing to keep the challenge level consistent. Sometimes the odds are overwhelmingly against you and you should run, sometimes you get lucky and curb stomp your enemies, often its somewhere between the two. Variety is the spice of life and should be embraced.
I think part of what makes John a good GM is how infrequently he brings up the rules and specific mechanics (harm, heat, coin, equipment). Obviously when they need to make rolls or resist consequences, the rules are brought up, but often it’s just a conversation about crime. That’s where the game lives and breathes.
Great points and you all address my similar roadblocks. After watching the videos, I have a much better idea of how it all should work. In fact, I’ve been inserting certains practices into our Star Wars game and they’ve been working very well. I’m hoping that using a familiar system to “practice a BitD style” of playing will make the transition easier. 
I forgot to add that the one bit I do have a grasp of is the weird. Dark, crazy occult stuff is like crack to me and I am nearly losing my shit (in a good way? lol) waiting to learn more of what awesome, scary things are in BitD. I’ve been rather tame in my presentation for the few games I’ve run because I don’t know everything yet. I could wing it and make it up but I prefer to know the author’s baseline first.
That said, I’m going to use a version of the Outsider in a solo game I’m planning on running. If her PC ends up being mortally wounded, the Black-Eyed Child (think the Silent Hill kid with star-filled, black eyes) will give her a choice: embrace me or die. She’ll become a revenant and be able to communicate with and “befriend” Deathseeker crows, as well as other death-themed abilities. We recently watched The Crow, in case that wasn’t obvious. 🙂
Is this “Bladesy”? No, most likely not. However it’s cool and weird and mixes The Crow, Abyssals (from Exalted) and sucks in the awesome that’s already there. It’s a dark trip with a one-of-a-kind “monster” (at least in BitD) and it’ll be (hopefully) fun.
I didn’t really watch any of the Bloodletters (or Six Towers gang at the time) playthroughs when I started running Blades, but I’ve always been a fiction first GM, and this game is 100% up my alley. I’ve found some really fun devil’s bargains like while at a party the crew found someone staring at one of their members and when they finally confronted him I proposed the devil’s bargain that this was someone from the character’s past. An ex-lover from law school turned Ink Rake it turned out.  Devil’s bargains that don’t have an immediate mechanical effect are the most interesting to me. Being able to say “ok, but then THIS is true” is a way to hint at future badness as well as establish details in the fiction, and by proposing it as a devil’s bargain it means the players have the option to say “no”… but that also means you need to respect that if they don’t want to accept the bargain, it doesn’t get to be true… yet.
I love threatening harm, and I’ve yet to have a player who has stress remaining decline the resist roll. I think being willing to treaten danger and allow the character to resist in a badass way is really important to the feel of the game too. But you can’t just say “ok I’m rolling resolve”, to keep the fiction first you need to explain HOW you are resisting with your resolve… since not matter how you roll, you are still avoiding the bulk of the harm if not all of it (and seeing what they are doing to resist helps decide fictionally if they reduce the consequences or eliminate them entirely.
Personally I’ve found the hardest part of running (and playing) is waiting for the declaration of position and possible effect before rolling dice… sometimes it can spoil the narrative flow of a fight or tense negotiation; but it’s also rather important because knowing you are going to have little effect without a crit might make you want to change your tactics, or think of some other factors to improve your position.
There’s something to the notion John uses a softer hand than most for his table , but I wouldn’t worry much about it.. Choose the one that is the most fun for your table. His GMing for the Bloodletters is actually a good example of a GM that is a fan of the characters. I am tougher than this, but then the players have also agreed to a tougher game.
1. I find this is just Enough for the Bloodletters fiction, considering how much fun they’re having. Though this is a function of Johns role as the developer too though, so it will vary greatly between home tables for such reasons. I am about that 1 deviation tougher than John, so it’s possible you’re right. I have seen level 2 harm or less, but not 3; whereas I have narrated level 3 harm before, and only let resisting reduce it by 1 level. But only once.
2. I took that to say it ignores “harm” which could be multiple, but at least least 1. In some situations you might rule more than 1 or all makes more sense than absorbing just 1 of an instance of harm. Like if the fiction for it feels right.
3. I’m tougher on my players than John is on the BLs. I do rely a lot on +1 heat bargains, but I also tend to threaten those ahead of time with fiction. I know I hit my players hard with heavier fiction at times, as well as keep that trend going during my enforcement thereof, via things like greater harm and reduced effect.
4. Fiction first. A conundrum at times. I follow the mantra as much as I can. I start from the initial setup, but avoid jumping directly from characters to the crew sheet. Along the way, I am asking for fiction in increasing amounts, and use that as fuel for a request for what amounts to an explosive amount of fiction from players. I suggest fiction inspired from the crew sheet along the way, see how they react, and I’m silently deciding whether the group will be using a crew sheet, or just sharing 3 coin. I would probably have given them free hold if they wanted it! But no.. They wanted far less. Not even a hideout or crew abilities..
One last observation, I am one of those who managed to squeeze in a little of all three phases (downtime, planning, score) into a 4 hour session, though hitting only two of the three can definitely feel more satisfying.
I think your analyses are pretty accurate. I’m not going easy on them just to go easy — it’s partially a function of the group dynamic, which leans a bit more ‘cinematic’ and partially a function of our very short sessions, which push us a bit toward broad strokes instead of grinding.
The overall grittiness of the game is a group by group setting, not the sole purvue of GMing style. If I was the sole decider, things would be much much nastier. 🙂
In a normal 4-hour session, I like to do three phases (score / downtime / score). Playing online for only 2.5 hours, we can’t cover that much ground. So we tend to go for a few punchy moments of character-driven choices instead.
You could imagine a BL series with longer sessions, in which they suffer level 2 or 1 harm with their armor use (instead of zero) and then also have the chance for downtime in the same session to heal it. :)
Great discussion!
Don’t forget that John Harper designed the game to teach new players how to GM whilst playing the game. The mechanics encourage adult interactions rather than parental ones, so its sorta like training wheels for Jazzing off each other and sharing the narrative control.
The end point of the game is not only to have a crew of retired rich scoundrels, but a GM-full table of players that’ll be itching to run fiction first games of their own.