Hi! I was watching in YouTube the Blades in the Dark actual roleplay by John Harper and in episode 4 a question was posted on the comments section
I want to bring it here, because I think it’s a good question and I’m really interested in read the answer.
“Hey John, I’ve been watching this series in order to get a feel for how Blades functions since I’m interested in starting my own campaign with friends and I have a question relating to GMing and players.
Specifically, Stras has always been really vocal about what Oskarr [the whisper] does and describing all sorts of magic and weirdness relating to him and you’ve always played along with it. I think it’s great to encourage players to take creativity into their own hands but is there a limit? For example, the scene where Oskarr is on the roof and pulls some magic ritual off or in fight freezes ice and stabs someone with it, how do you judge what is a good level of improvisation and what starts to push the boundaries of what could break the game? Or, more importantly, how can you deal with it?”
📌
.
This sounds like a good topic for a Hangout 🙂
Yeah, this is a complex topic. I should do a stream chat about it.
This is why I included the guide to arcane magnitude in the game (page 68 of the PDF). It shows how much you should be able to do for a given stress cost, and shows what’s considered extreme in terms of power.
Not exactly answering the question, but also keep in mind “game effects” vs “narration”
A lot of games mix the two – e.g. “You throw a fireball, which does 4d6 points of damage and sets things on fire”
If you split that up into two parts, it could be:
“You attack for 4d6 points of damage…. by throwing a fireball”
and since the “throwing a fireball” is now just a narrative description, it doesn’t really “break the game” if the players want to describe it differently. Throwing an ice bolt. Stabbing their voodoo doll. Stabbing with a sword.
There might also be a third part
“You attack for 4d6 points of damage… by throwing a fireball… which sets things on fire”
Blades handles that third part super well, because “complications” are already built into the dice system. Succeed and you’ve achieved what you intended (you did 4d6 points of damage) – succeed with extra success and you get even more effect (… and their clothes are on fire!) – fail or succeed with consequences and you get a problem (… the roof is on fire and going to collapse in soon)
This means that the player both can describe how their actions are narrated, but the consequences of their actions are strongly tied to that narration.
If a player wants to kill by farting on their enemies, and have them choke on the stench then… well, that might “ruin” the game feel, but it doesn’t “break” the game. Having a conversation with the player about what the group is aiming for in terms of atmosphere, mood, and gravitas would be more effective than “reigning them in”
In general, when I’m having trouble dealing with this, I just break out those parts. I ask:
– “Wait, what are you trying to do?”
– “I’m trying to set them on fire!”
– “Yes, but mechanically, what are you doing? Trying to do damage to kill them? Trying to give an advantage to the lurk sneaking up to backstab them? Trying to distract them so they can’t attack you?”
– “All of those I guess? But mostly trying to do damage”
– “OK then. And you’re doing it by throwing a fireball?”
– “Yep!”
– “Devils bargain, this fireball will totally kill him, but the explosion will be so large everyone will take minor burns”
– “No thanks!”
– “OK cool. Roll. So, you throw a fireball that badly burns him (since that was the main effect being rolled for) and… the flames and smoke make it harder for him to spot the lurk so he’ll get increased effect on that ambush, but the fireball might have hit the lurk who was sneaking up behind so that’ll be a desperate roll rather than a risky roll.”
And… if you think about it, we could have exactly that same conversation with the Hound who says “I’m going to shoot him” or the Leech using an explosive. So in that sense, I’m pretty happy for players to have crazy abilities like fireballs, since it doesn’t really give them much increased power. It just changes the way we’re describing what they do with the narrative/power they already have. As in, mechanically, they have the power to “damage their opponent”, so letting them describe doing that damage as a sword cut, fireball, or bullet hole is more narrative than mechanical. The mechanics will stop the game from breaking, and the narrative freedom will help the players 🙂
Tony Demetriou I totally agree with you. My english is very crappy, but is the exact same way I see the whisper powers. Also, Worlds in peril give me a great perspective on how to use the fiction to let the players justify their powers and the way they use them