I ran 6 hours of Blades in the Dark today. The first session was for 4 people. One had played at my Blades in the Dark game before at a game day. Two were experienced players who never played Blades in the Dark. One was a board gamer trying out role playing games.
We had a good time. I got my players in three waves, so that complicated character generation, but we took the time and worked it out. Then I walked them through the gang questions and gave them my abbreviated rules summary, and we got started.
After the heist, during the lunch break, I talked to one of the experienced gamers who was new to this game. She said the premise made them sound like cool characters, as did the special abilities, but she found it frustrating (echoing the frustration of the table) how difficult it was to get successes without feeling hobbled by the complications. It felt like the characters just weren’t good at their jobs.
OKAY, the LAST thing I need is to get clobbered with the discussion of “we like it dirty and hard and our characters screwed up bad and the game is pointless without constant complications” line of reasoning. I’ve heard it over and over and I know it by heart. I can say that I soft-pedal the game with new people and one shots and STILL get consistent feedback that while they like the game overall, new players often struggle at the incompetence of their characters.
I will also note I allowed them to get all the bonus dice they paid for, instead of limiting it to just one. If they got support from another character’s stress, and also a devil’s bargain, and also spent stress for a die, I let them have all three. And I offered devil’s bargains that weren’t absolutely wrenching all the time. And the new players were still struggling with the sense that their characters were incompetent. It’s easy for four dice to come up with a high number of 2. And no, I could not care less for your statistical projections–this is how it plays out, on a frequent basis, whether it should or not.
PLEASE DON’T ARGUE WITH MY PLAYERS’ FEEDBACK BY PROXY. I am not them and I’ve already had every flavor of this conversation I care to. If you disagree with them it’s fine to note that in the privacy of your head and move on. The game isn’t going to change, so you will get it the way you like it.
ANYWAY.
The players had so much fun all four came back for the afternoon session, plus a new one. One of my players enthusiastically took on the task of helping the new guy make a character. We picked up where we left off, turning a complication on an acquisition flashback roll (protect a vendor’s daughter, some guy is stalking her) into the focus for the heist.
After that, we did another heist inspired by previous events of the day. They spun one heist into 3 separate parts of the plan, and I dialed the scope way out so we used a combination of rolls, expenditures of stress, snips of conversation, and delegation to gangs to take care of business up to the climactic final step. We were totally outside the heist/down time structure.
Part of the reason for this was because we were playing gangs instead of making a crew. So, downtime basically clears injuries and stress and hurls them back into action.
They tried out 3 of the gang types, and all 3 underbosses, but stuck with the same gang of aristocratic rooks because they loved Rusty and his ne’er do wells and were reluctant to give them up.
And the goat humor. So much goat humor. In part because one character set a wagon on fire and rolled it down the hill, crushing a blue coat and smashing the finest Red Sash carriage, setting the hindquarters of two of the regal goats on fire, so they went berserk. In a previous heist I invented “goat-amp” which is smelling salts for goats, administered at the end of a stick to prevent immediate death from startled and angry goat. The gang of rooks experimented with drinking some flakes in wine and were sick for a week.
As they were escaping the flaming wagon heist, one of the players offered a devil’s bargain; if there is a complication, it will be related to a flaming goat. The player took that bargain, attempting to escape the bluecoats. So, according to a flashback, they hired an organ grinder to put fireworks in his rig so he could stage a distraction as they were escaping. The noise triggered the goat’s fighting instinct where it hid in the alley, and it rushed out, singed hindquarters and all, and leaped at the character (who resisted getting hit.) The goat fell into the canal and made hysterical noises, however briefly, as they escaped.
My players had a good time visiting the city and playing with the flashbacks and flavor of the game. It was a great experience overall, and I think they’ll think of Blades in the Dark as a fun game in the future. I got to do some experimental things structure wise (unfurling a 3 part adventure over the course of just over an hour is pretty intense if you drive the pace as the players try to reach consensus on next steps while managing different agendas and capacities.)
Blades in the Dark is still great!
If they came back, it must’ve been not so bad. Did you have the feeling that there might have been too many rolls? Arguably, rolls are only necessary for exceptionally dicey actions; dicey defined as high likelihood of failure. With many rolls, complications and straight-up failure are going to be very likely (even with many dice) and we tend to remember the bad more vividly than the good.
It is telling that the players expected the characters to be superpeople, at least that is how I understand it. With movies, books, and many other media drawing characters in superhuman terms (I mean how likely is it that you escape a hail of bullets unscathed — repeatedly), I think it’s difficult to temper expectations towards pessimism.
They still had plenty of fun, so that’s great nonetheless.
I had that same “can never succeed without complications” frustration when I first played.
When running the game I tried to handle it by:
– explaining that the game system tries to escalate the situation, so successful actions lead to complications that lead to more dramatic plots. This isn’t bad and, while they can resist this…try to embrace it.
– stress is like mana for a wizard, not hit points. You spend it because you are doing something awesome, not because you failed.
– I kept most complications pretty ambiguous and tied to the fiction. The leech smoke bombed to escape? The complication is that he is also coughing from the smoke. That sort of thing that we might have still narrated if playing D&D. The hound shot at two enemies with electroplasmic bullets? The complication is that they die rather than just being incapacitated. So I’m careful the complications add to, rather than negate, the actions being rolled.
We’ve only played a few sessions, but when I asked, the players said they felt their characters were capable and the complications didn’t make them feel like the victories were hollow.
I haven’t noticed that much. A repeat player mentioned the commonality of the 4-5 result, but seemed more delighted than bothered. This might also be because Most actions my players take are controlled, though. Plus, when the action is simple (often) and has no clock, the common result of 4-5 usually just means they did it but at cost (usually a minor narrative cost, plus now repeating that action is probably risky); so the impact ends up being low as long as they don’t linger. I encourage more desperate actions at times, but the players only take them when they really just want to end the scene. I guess my experience with consequences is just.. a bit different from yours is all.
It’s worth noting that your experience is probably more common than mine, and could be some by product of my GMing or players style too
4-5 results is where story happens. GMs should use it as an opportunity to inject a little chaos into the proceedings. However, a success with consequences is still a success.
Also, they can resist consequences other than just Harm. Say there’s a fight in an alley, they roll Skirmish and get a 5. “Great”, you say, “your attack is successful, but the remaining thugs have you backed into a corner, so your next roll will be Desperate.” They can make a roll to resist, spend the Stress, and the Position doesn’t change (and then narrate how they maneuvered out of the consequence).
One of my players summarised the rules to a new group member as “you have to roll a six or buildings fall on you.”
TO REPEAT, I have NO INTEREST in rehashing this argument or, for certain, being SCOLDED for DOING IT WRONG. So, I’m pretty much going to ignore comments in that direction.
I will address the issue of players expecting to play superheroes. Part of their expectations are set by having stylish and dashing terms-of-art for playbook names. They aren’t playing “thug” they’re playing “Cutter.” They aren’t playing “shooter” they’re playing “Hound.” I mean, seriously. The names are pretentious, and the only people who can get away with that are badasses.
Then there are the special abilities. They can force magical contracts to bind people. They can change the weather. They can hide from ghosts, they can psychically bond with pets. Players get these ideas from reading over that sort of thing before they ever toss the cubes.
Also, consider everybody has this whiz magic gear. Goggles to see in the dark. Magic rage potions. Super keen guns. No wonder they think they should be pretty awesome.
Then turn around and say “Don’t know why you expect to be special.”
The player voicing the complaint said she could tell I was pulling away from the harshness of consequences and appreciated the way I ran the game. So there’s that. Whether she’s right or wrong, that is what she thought.
The intangibles like having fun with “goat amp” and hearing the distant tolling of the seminary bell every time they killed people went a long way towards making the game fun. =)
I know that in time expectations shift and players accept that’s how it is and eventually the frustration does recede (and they also get more dice.) However, I do feel it is noteworthy that I CONSISTENTLY get feedback from frustrated players in the first sessions. (And report it back here. And have the same conversation over and over. So, yeah, done with THAT part.)
I’m not about to tell them they’re wrong about what’s fun, and how they are supposed to feel about it. That’s very off-putting. I just do everything I can to show them where the fun is.
Andrew Shields excuse me, but who’s scolded you?
Anyway maybe there are GM techniques that you haven’t tried that could mitigate this effect. It’s the nature of posting to a public forum with many participants that you will receive repetitive comments. But if you’re not interested in possible causes and solutions, why bother posting?
I’m posting to share not just feedback, but another point in consistent feedback. I’m not looking to persuade, but this does two things.
One, people here are going to run games, and they can be aware this is a common first reaction. Two, I’ve been talking about this since I first ran Blades in the Dark in March 2015, and people have consistently offered this feedback. So, often you get into a discussion and mention it and people will suggest it’s a fluke rather than a pattern, and it can be helpful to support your assertion it’s not uncommon.
I have tried varying my GM style in response to being told in this community that I’m calling for too many rolls, or not enough, or too much of this, or not enough of that. I’ve been around those blocks and done a lot of experimentation over the last 7.1 versions.
In a public forum with many participants, of course you expect to revisit some topics. That’s why I explicitly said I’m not interested in having that conversation again. People don’t have to have context and background, I’ve flat out stated it. People can say what they want, but just understand, from the first post, I’m not going to engage in that conversation about whether or not I’m doing it right and how awesome constant complication is. As stated, I have two other reasons to bring this up. Full stop.
Goat amp!
Sounds like our was a good time. I’m still trying to wrap my head around the rules for BitD but I think it is a very cool system. I love the system’s success matrix. I love that complications can occur with a success. But then again I have a masochistic history with gaming with Call of Cthulhu, Pandemic, Dark Souls, to name a few. I don’t play games to win, I play to interact with people and have fun.
Thanks for the post man!
edchuk sockmonkey We’ll have to get a crew together so you can try it out online. Prod some rogues, let’s set something up. =)
Everytime I run BitD I try to Make Failure Awesome
https://fate-srd.com/fate-core/what-do-during-play#making-failure-awesome
Pedro Pablo Calvo Thanks for that link; good advice for most games, really.
You are welcome, sir. I think it is important to embrace the concept of Everytime you throw the dice, regardless of the result, something exciting will happen. It’s not a pass/fail scenario. The dice convey the type of excitement you will get.
Weeell, sometimes there is a virtue in using pass/fail just to get on to the next, more exciting thing, heh.
Yeah, of course. Sometimes failing is exciting in its own right. Then, you simply fail.
good share, if for nothing else than the “Goats & Flaming Wagons” achievement!