So I have been GMing two games of Blades. One group is a small group of cultists that have been striking at the big boys and rolling with the punches. They accept many Devil’s bargains and constantly want to put themselves in Desperate positions to ride life on the razor’s edge.
The second group is fairly large. It can hover from four to six people. The main issue I have is that they almost never accept my bargains and try their most to “min max” this game. One player won’t do anything for the group unless it involves him out in the open and sniping people. They cut off our Cutter from trying to do violent things. Most importantly, they take the consequences that their Scoundrels get almost personally. I don’t know if it’s a “video game” mindset or something that was gained from playing too much mechanical D&D. I just feel like I’m not getting through to this latter group on trying to really revel in the scoundrel lifestyle.
Do any of you have advice or similar stories of groups like this? I am sort of at a loss.
Yeah, it happens. Games aren’t one size fits all. You tried, but it sounds like they’re not a good fit for Blades. No big deal. Plenty of other games out there.
(I’m biting my tongue about the multiple red flags with that second group that makes me think any RPG is gonna be hell with them. I don’t know them! I’m probably wrong. But damn.)
Some people play for the best results. They don’t follow the guidelines presented here: lookrobot.co.uk – 11 ways to be a better roleplayer
Two possible pieces of advice I have to offer
1. Get them to read the Blades guide for Best Player Practices. There’s lots of good stuff there about loving consequences and never saying no to an idea just because it might not work out. Maybe have them look at the link I’ve provided. Guide them to “better” roleplaying. If they’re open-minded, it should work. Don’t just hope it works itself out.
2. If they reject that stuff, or it just doesn’t sink in after multiple attempts to guide them, then you’ve really got little choice. You decide if you want to run a game for people with the “optimal outcome” mindset. If not, cut out any cancerous players as politely as you can or drop the group. It can feel rude and awkward to do, but in my opinion, life is too short to GM for a group you don’t have synergy with.
I can understand the red flags. The sad part is that the guy who’s the Hound actually GM’s for D&D 3.5. The weird thing is that the ones that do attempt to put their characters in danger and really let the punches come are the newest roleplayers. The general plan coming up soon is to split the group in two and see how that goes. It’s just a tad frustrating because I have such polarizing experiences with two groups.
I do appreciate the input though. I’ve watched both your Blood Letters game and what you’ve done on Rollplay and it’s really neat to see how the players are truly what makes the game live. You’ve allowed this system to be something made for the players. I guess the downside is that if the players can’t bring anything to the game, then the game is bound to fail.
That’s true of all RPGs, imo. Without engaged and interesting players, what’s the point? Blades makes it really obvious when that’s not the case, though.
There are some other games that can skate by more easily with disengaged or troublesome players, and the failure isn’t as stark.
Edit to add: That’s pretty ranty and overstates the case a bit. I get ranty on this topic. 🙂
You can try one thing before giving up on the group entirely. Ask before your next session how the group feels the game is going, what parts of the system they’re connecting with, what they actually enjoy about the system and story you’re all telling. If the game isn’t something that they group as a whole is into, maybe salvage the people who are genuinely interested. I was in a group that was very video gamey about a campaign, eventually left it. It was definitely for the better in the long run.
tl;dr: Have some honest real talk with that second group. See if you can find the disconnect. Excise as needed.
Yeah my first impression is that the group is too large for BitD. Four people is alright but seven certainly makes it hard to do anything but “wait for your turn to take an action”. Without the room to breathe it can become more about the dice and less about the role playing.
Though again it may also not be the right game for some of them. Blades more than other games relies on player who revels in a bit of self destruction and heartache. And some people prefer to just be heroes and badasses. There’s plenty of games for both types of players out there.
That’s sort of why I’ve finally strayed from running D20 games as much. I’ve seen many games get along just fine with troublesome players because at it’s heart, they tend to be more focused on the mechanics. I’d be rich if I had a nickel anytime a GM told me that I couldn’t do something because there was a feat I could take later on to do
insert cool thing here.I think my most positive experience playing that type of system was with a GM who hardly knew the rules and just sort of let the mechanics do what needs to be done at the time. When all caution is thrown to the wind do we get good storytelling. This isn’t just an RPG specific statement, but for storytelling in general. It’s one of the main reasons that I’ve come to really love Blades. Caution is just the nature of the game.
John Harper I think that it’s a slow process converting people into respectable story focused role players from combat simulationists. Maybe someday they will be ready for the challenge but today might not be that day.
Zack, have you actually sat down with your “problem” group and discussed this with them plainly?
If you have, and they have continued playing this way anyway, obviously the style of game you want to run is not the style of game they want to play, and it’s time to decide if you want to adapt to what they want or, if that’s not going to be fun for you, stop the game.
If you haven’t discussed it, then I recommend that you do, because that’s going to the quickest and simplest way to find out if they’re interested in playing the game more in line with how you want it played.
Tandy Larson framing it as “converting people into respectable story focused role-players from combat simulationists” is kinda the wrong tack here. People who like their games heavy on the hack and slash is totally ok in my book. Sure it’s great to introduce people to new experiences whether that is heavy on the masochist side like BitD or Bluebeard’s Bride or Undying, or more pulpy action with a side of charm and teenage angst like Masks or adorable like Golden Sky Stories or serious twisted horror like Kult or Dread. They got their thing and hey maybe if you introduce it right they might like another thing. It’s not about converting people to any one thing it’s giving people a chance to say yes to something new whatever that something new is.
Maybe the best tack to take is for Zack Rust to ask them what they want to get out of the game? If what they want to get out of it doesn’t work with the Blades in the Dark then try another game on for size. Of course if what they want for fun is hack and slash and loot and you want to introduce them to a different style of game there’s always World of Dungeon: Breakers.
Zack Rust It might also be worth pointing out to the players that when they take those desperate actions and do it in a way they might have less success with, they gain xp thatll lead to them having less ‘bad stats’.
I feel your pain. I was lucky enough that it was only one player who tried to ‘weasel out’ of rolling lesser rolls. Pointing the mechanic out to him did appeal to him. (I guess he might have liked the idea of being able to max out his stats, which makes my loving GM heart cringe a little although it does make for a better gaming experience for the group as a whole).
Hope you’ll be able to fix the situation, but remember that if it isnt meant to be, you still have an amazing other group by the sound of it 😉
I thought taking devils bargains was how you min-maxed in Blades?
As for the groups, hey, one out of two, not bad!