So, I’ve been running a group for a couple weeks now (I think they’ve attempted ~4 scores) and the table has had some issues in dealing with complexity towards plans or action descriptions.
Hopefully some of the players see this and give their 2 cents on it as well. There’s been a few times where the group has tried to come up with rather complicated plans and its been difficult for them to pin down specific details or plans (I’ve been trying to offer the idea of linked plans, or having a setup of some sort).
Have you guys had experiences like this with your own groups? How do you work through it? I try not to stifle player creativity (though I do interject when it becomes discussions about contingencies still)
A few players have mentioned feeling “limited” in what they are allowed to do, so I thought I’d bring the question over here because I didn’t have a great response for it.
Thanks all.
Could you give a concrete example?
The Shadow crew today wanted to get the Infirmary Claim. So they wanted to get in favor w/ a Refuge Clinic in Charhallow by slipping in and stealing all the medicine and supplies of the clinic, deceiving them into believing it was someone else (or a junkie) and then putting then in their debt by “giving them” medicine and supplies.
When I then inquired as to what plan this was, the group agreed to go ahead for a Stealth plan by way of a side-entrance used by staff (gotten through a crit Gather Info roll). With the option/possibility of a linked plan or action for any future parts to their idea.
(Some players might comment and/or give slightly more nuanced feedback though )
Sounds cool to me.
So what was the problem with the complex plan/specifics/being limited?
We had a similar scenario. The players decided they wanted a brothel/tavern. So they decided to drug the guards, then storm in and take the place. They’d already organized that a rival gang of equal strength would support them and provide protection to them as the new owners.
It was a little awkward for the players to get the balance between planning in advance and laying it all out, vs just starting the score, and making it up as they went along (we’re all new to BitD.)
In the end, they planned enough to send someone in to plant drugs, had a tunnel entrance, had the other gang members standing by outside to rush in once they’d taken control. And then improvised the rest.
At the end of that fight I said “well, that score is finished. Here’s your gang experience and heat and stuff.” and then we kept roleplaying from that point (they staged some of the deaths to look like a bar fight that went badly, etc. so we just roleplayed it, then rolled to reduce heat as a downtime action)
I don’t think the “type of engagement” really mattered at all. It’s a nice idea, because it lets us select something from the list, decide one detail, and then start roleplaying and figure out the rest as we go. But since the players wanted to plan, they had ideas for how they would pull it off, and wanted to tailor their previous downtime actions around information gathering and preparing for their specific plan, there wasn’t really any benefit from that “get straight into it” mechanic.
Is that the sort of thing you meant?
I’m not exactly sure. haha. Possibly? They seemed to have issues deciding on details I believe.
I think also, in retrospect, some of this could have been a series of project clocks to figure out. The whole overall idea never came to fruition though because they rolled poorly on the engagement roll and Ulf Ironborn showed up and was wrecking the place.
Ha!
Well, as I said, we’re new to the game so I’m trying to keep it simple. But it’s been working so far for us by just reminding the players that they don’t have to plan, that they can improvise their “plans” later. But they can if they want.
So I’d probably run this one by saying “Sure, you’re going to stealth in and take it? Well, maybe this is more a negotiation? Or two scores? Or… it doesn’t matter, let’s do this!
And then I’d ask if they’re ready, and when they say they are, I’d say “So, you’re all hanging out in an alleyway that can see the refuge. Unless you want to be somewhere else. You’ve brought your gear – do you have light, medium, or heavy loads? OK, whenever you’re ready…” and let them just start roleplaying.
Then if they roleplay that they’re sneaking in and taking the stuff, I’d get them to make a few rolls and narrate it, and if they’re successful then that might be all there is to it. Easy score! But more likely the dice will lead to some escalation of compications, to keep things interesting. Then they get their stuff, they then need to frame someone else, and return the stuff. So that’s a few more dice rolls (depending on their earlier preparation and/or flashbacks – I’d probably suggest “You can flash back to having stolen this rival gang’s jackets or something”) and then… see what the outcome is.
Maybe they get the stuff, but get caught. So instead of framing and giving back the gear, they might instead start their own infirmary – so I’ll run a plot about trying to find a doctor rather than running the scene when they return the stuff. Maybe they return it, but the infirmary staff know that they were played, and I secretly do a countdown clock as the infirmary staff look for another gang that can offer them protection (and each time this gang treats them well, helps them etc. I reduce that clock, until we discover whether the doctors are happy to stay with this crew) or whatever.
I guess I’m saying that I’d take what the players have, let them keep planning if they want, but jump in whenever the players are ready, and then see where things lead. I wouldn’t worry too much about the game structure if that is getting in the way.
Thanks for the feedback! Really Appreciated!
When the players are missing “the detail” part of their cool plan, I remind them they don’t know it yet. Then I immediately suggest ways they might take action to gather information and get them the detail for their plan
Mark Cleveland Massengale With my group, it’s less that the players “don’t know” the detail, but more that they “haven’t decided” it.
So for example, if they’re going to assault an enemy gang, it’s weird to ask for “the detail” of how they’re attacking, since that answer might be “kicking in the front door” – because in play what would happen is they’d arrive, ask for descriptions of the building and whether they can see guards, probably try to sneak in, and if they get spotted kick in the front door and attack.
But if all seems to go well, no alarm has been raised, they might keep sneaking, pick the back door lock or climb in a window, and end up doing a stealth mission. Even though they were expecting it to be a combat.
Other than getting things underway with some quick brainstorming, I don’t really understand how the plan/detail really ties in mechanically. I can’t imagine my players gathering information about their “point of attack”, or “entry point” but I can imagine them gathering information about “the enemy stronghold” and using that to decide on their attack/entry points.
The example you described sounds like it just started as an assault plan but changed to stealth because they didnt have the details to really form their plan. This is exactly the problem I avoid by making players know the detail. If they never saw the place on-screen, how can they describe assaulting it? Their options are to ask questions at that point. Or assume there is a front door they can attack, or whatever.
I might simply tell them what the front looks like without an action (common knowledge), and asking if they gather information to answer their questions.
re: “Other than getting things underway with some quick brainstorming, I don’t really understand how the plan/detail really ties in mechanically.”
Mechanically, the detail is needed to evaluate the preparedness of the opposition against what they are doing. Do they attack them at their lair? Maybe at the docks? Those look very different. How do you know the difference if not for the detail?
Getting specific can be very beneficial as well. Attacking them at “their lair” might be a bad idea (1d) whereas attacking “through the hidden side door of the lair” might be a better one (2d). Also, they might know this is made better (3d) if they can sneak into position (probably using an easier, linked plan/engagement roll). But had they not studied the place and the movements of the guards (via gather info) they would not have known there even is a side door.
re: “Even though they were expecting it to be a combat.”
The engagement roll tells you how that buildup goes. We skip to the point of action without being jarring because they knew there were guards to start with
re: “I can’t imagine my players gathering information about their “point of attack”, or “entry point” but I can imagine them…” [snip]
I think the two situations are basically the same, except the second one already has some information to start (it sounds like “the enemy stronghold” was already determined to be a thing, and maybe that is enough). Gathering info about details for plans is the #1 thing my players do with that action (otherwise unknown details needed to trigger an engagement roll, or just more info about a detail)
Hope some of this was helpful
Tony Demetriou
I am fairly new to Blades myself, but that sounds like a Blades score to me.
I assume the characters Gathered Information (as a downtime action?) that gave the players the fact that there is an opportunity to strike at an enemy gang and they have guards. The better the Gather Info roll, the more or better information they get.
Planning phase.
Plan – Sneak
Detail – Past the guards (OK, so this bit needs work. Not much. Side door maybe?)
Choose Load size
Engagement roll goes badly and the characters react with paragraph 2.
Engagement roll goes well and continue with paragraph 3.
What happens next?
Play to find out.
This works no matter what crime is involved. Doesn’t matter what the goal is in the initial stages. Could be a theft, Kidnapping, smuggling, assassination, anything. As long as they plane to sneak in, this is how it starts.
All the cosmetic detail around it, and how much the characters know, is where the fun is. The mechanics just help
Also, don’t forget about flashbacks. This is the characters chance to go back and prepare for something the players didn’t expect.
Remember, the characters are better criminals than the players (I hope) and flashbacks is how the game deals with this. Even if it is just a stress free flashback to the previous Gather Information phase to ask the right question about the obstacle encountered.
Prep a map and traps and guards so you know what is going on (unless they hit you with it out of the blue like my guys mostly do, in which case it becomes a bit procedurally generated while I make it up on the fly) and give them as much info as their rolls allow.
I am finding that I have the most fun when I don’t hold on too tight.
Something that Tony Demetriou said above really resonated, and that’s the idea that the group is highly wishy-washy with the details sometimes and as soon as something happens they immediately “change plans” (i think the example was assault->stealth). Which I understand fictionally is a thing, but then usually when that happens the whole operation the plan was about gets extremely muddled and it becomes confusing as to what their actual goal is at that point – even though they still want to play it out.
There’s a few techniques/tips I think that could help with, but so far I think they has happened to more or lesser degrees in a few of the “scores” I’ve tried to GM.
TL;DR Plans become extremely mushy after consequences occur and the Goals of Scores generally get lost when complicated plans that have iffy details are used.
Yep, there can be growing pains when you start learning the weird way Blades deals with this stuff. You might find yourself in a middle-ground; not fully embracing the new way and not fully abandoning the old way.
The idea is to use the plan/detail/engagement roll to cut into the action in progress. If the engagement roll goes badly, then sure, maybe you cut to the crew outside the enemy lair, still poking around for a way in, when the enemy sentries get suspicious and come around to see what’s going on.
But if the engagement roll goes well, you can skip over that and cut further into the action, closer to the goal of the plan. “That side door was a great idea! They didn’t even have a guard posted. You’re right up the stairs and outside Bazso’s office where he keeps his prized whiskey collection. You hear a few Lampblacks walking around the place, floorboards creaking, but they don’t know you’re here. What do you do?”
Some groups of players will fall all over themselves trying to do six plans at once. But you don’t have to get sucked in to that. Ask them what they want to accomplish with this score. Ask them how they’d like to go about it (the type of plan might also be called “What sounds fun to do next?”). Use the detail to set the engagement roll, then use the roll to cut to the action in pursuit of the stated goal. Put them right there in the place, doing the thing to achieve the goal.
If you roll engagement, and then also play out every moment going into the score, you’re wasting that roll. The roll jumps us forward into the score itself, using the outcome to determine how the initial “careful prodding” of the target went.
You’re skipping over stuff that the PCs do, which freaks out some players. They want to hit the brakes and play out every little thing that they do. But Blades asks you to let that go, use the engagement roll to leap forward in time, and then use flashbacks (if you need to!) to fill in action that was skipped.
John Harper Thanks John. I have been very close, but not quite. I must admit, my guys have not rolled a 6 on their engagement roll, but I probably still wouldn’t have taken a 6 as far as your example.
Wow, these are the longest comments I’ve ever seen on a post! This is a point of much contention it seems.
It’s hard to pin down exactly what the problem is without being there, but it sounds like perhaps the players couldn’t decide the detail because they lacked information. If your players aren’t likely to want to make a few gather information rolls to find out what they don’t know, that’s fine. Instead, ask them what the clinic layout is like. Let them tell you what kind of guards there are, and what entrances may exist. This requires some trust in your players that they’ll say something fun and interesting and not “there are no guards and all the doors are unlocked!”
When my players wanted to stealth plan into a museum heist, I asked for the point of entry. A player asked if the museum was adjacent to the canals, and if there was an underwater entrance to a now flooded floor of the museum. And what do you know, of course there was. The engagement roll then determined how well entering here went (if I recall, it started off poorly for them, but they ended up gaining a ghost squid monster as a permanent cohort because of it).
Thanks guys, this discussion really helps me ‘get’ some of the rules that seemed to not quite fit.
I’m happy with how our session went, so I don’t feel the need to change that, but I always want to understand how it was designed to go, so I can make an informed decision rather than “missing something” that might have worked better.
As Cam Mitchell said, All the cosmetic detail around it, and how much the characters know, is where the fun is. The mechanics just help.
I think we’re probably good – I can see that help being really useful when running a score like John Harper describes. I think we “discover it while playing” if we play out those earlier stages (when the player describes sneaking in the side door, or kicking in the front door) – assuming we want to play that out rather than skip it.
But if the engagement roll goes well, you can skip over that and cut further into the action, closer to the goal of the plan. “That side door was a great idea!”
This, I totally understand – but I don’t think it’s how at least 2 of our players want to play. Their feedback after the first score was “yeah, that worked fine and was fun, but skipped a lot of the roleplay that we enjoy” and they specifically asked me to make sure that we don’t spend all the time on scores. It’s less that they want to necessarily roleplay the preparation, and more that they want to roleplay the preparation in character so that the roleplay can influence how the preparation changes the plans. Same with the score.
Ben Wright describes this well with: the group is highly wishy-washy with the details sometimes and as soon as something happens they immediately “change plans”
I think that, for our group, that is a feature not a bug. They enjoy that wishy washy variability, and intentionally create it by having their characters have opinions, agendas, biases and the like that will push or pull them. They don’t want to decide that they sneak in, and have a successful engagement roll put them inside on the upper floor, because they want to “play to find out” in case the lurk decides to try and steal the guard’s pocket watch on the way in, or the Sokovian starts a brawl because he sees his countrymen being mistreated inside, or any number of other events that might flow from their roleplay. For at least half the players, that roleplay and those decisions are the “fun” part of the score. Rolling the dice to see if they get into the vault isn’t nearly as interesting for them.
That does kind of bypass the strength of the BitD system – but we’re happy with that. That part of the RP doesn’t need a game system to support it, and the BitD system doesn’t seem to get in the way of doing it.
To accommodate this, since it blurs the lines between “on a score” and “downtime”, we’ve had to change up the downtime actions rules a little. (We’re trialling “two downtime actions a day”)
I realize that the way Blades handles planning may take you guys out of your comfort zone, but I suggest giving it a full faith effort a few times before you decide it’s just not for you. It’s one of the defining features of the game, and while it may take a while to get used to for a group that is fully entrenched in older systems, I think it’s worth it.
You said that your players don’t want to miss out on the roleplay that the system skips, but note that the system doesn’t make you do any less roleplay, it just chooses to cut immediately to the most dramatic parts of a score. If some important to your players was missed, you can always flash back to that. If you think this means that you’ll miss out on character development between scores, I suggest watching John’s game, The Bloodletters, and see how they handle downtime and development. It’s a fun game to watch and they do a great job with the characters.