Can the same player that performed a setup action benefit from said action? If it makes narrative sense, of course. I assume the answer is yes for a number of reasons, but it’d be nice to be clear on this one.
If yes, would you consider any of the following to be setup actions:
* Taking aim with a firearm, given enough time; whether aiming at a fleeing target or attempting to take a long distance shot. (Hunt)
* Lying in wait, whether in hiding or around a corner, with weapons and/or implements at the ready in an attempt to ambush someone. (Prowl)
* Simply amping yourself up with Sway, Command, or even drugs (Tinker).
I wouldn’t, for two reasons: 1) I would assume that the characters are always already setting themselves up (ie already doing everything to aid their success in their power), and 2) This “set-up” action should be already taken into account when determining position.
Finally, since this a “teamwork” action… and there’s no I in TEAM, again, nope.
Hmm, these examples sound more like pushing oneself or trading position for effect level.
The problem I see: a (setup) action warrants a dice roll… and waiting/aiming or talking to oneself is nothing that justifies dice rolling.
A valid setup action in my opinion would be a sniper prowling to a better position in a guarded area, for example.
Would the area not be guarded and also no other obstacle present, it doesn’t qualify as setup action.
Rules say any member of the team can benefit from increased effect with follow up actions. So I’d allow the person who did the setup action to benefit also, when it made sense. You’ve made a roll, taken the risk, and presumably got a success (and sucked up any consequences) so I think you should be able to access the reward too.
Almost any action roll can be used to setup a later roll; all you need to do is make that your goal for the action. I’ve had group action be used to setup a team mate, like the Lurk leads the Cutter into position to setup the Cutter to attack more effectively. That’s mixing team actions and allowing someone to essentially set themselves up. But it made sense to me, fictionally and within the rules, so I see no problems.
One point, most of your examples don’t really sound like actions. They sound like prep, the calm before the storm, where there’s no trouble or danger at hand, so there’s no need to roll. And generally, a setup action needs a roll, because usually it’s something a character does that’s potentially troublesome or dangerous. Finding the best place to snipe or ambush someone from, that’s an action that’s dangerous. Not sure about amping yourself up, unless we start a self-loathing clock or something, though that could get too heavy quickly.
This has come up a lot in the game I am running and so far I have allowed it. Blades give you the option to zoom into the details of every scene if it is interesting enough and in those situations, using set up actions for yourself does work very well.
But the actions you are describing in your post do in my opinion not make sense to be a setup action. What you are describing is using the same action (for example hunt, taking aim) to set up another hunt action (hunt: shoot at the target). In those cases, a single dice roll with the option to push yourself is enough and in my opinion the intended mechanic of the game to handle these situations. Aiming and shooting a target are not a setup and an action, they are simply part of the same action.
Things are different though if you consider combining two different actions. Blades does not have a mechanic to fork in your other skills into your dice pool, like for example burning wheels does. Instead I let my players perform a setup action for themselves, as long as they use a different action afterwards. Here are two examples from our game (we are running a cyberpunk hack):
Takitomo-3B, our heavily cybered weapon expert, is in a firefight against N-lights corporate security. He decides to survey the situation to predict how his opponents are going to act or how he can decisively end this battle. This is a setup actions for his follow up hunt or skirmish action. There is risk involved with his setup action but it might improve his position or effect on his followup action.
This is a very common setup in our game, many of my players that do not have high combat skills try to use their other skills, maybe social, maybe some perception type of skill or even something like wreck, to gain some kind of advantage on their next combat action.
Silk, our face, wants to negotiate with a corporate Suit. He wants the suit to hand over the blueprints for a research facility. The suit showed up with his bodyguard, for obvious reasons. To strengthen his position and show the guy that he is definitely not in control of the situation, Silk tried a setup move. Silk used his finesse action: He disarmed the bodyguard, removed the clip of the weapon and handed it back to him in one smooth motion. What ever he uses next – sway, consort of command, he made it very clear that he is the one controlling the situation and improves his position.
So I will allow it if
a) the situation is interesting enough for the player and the Gm that everyone wants to zoom in and get a very detailed view of whats going on
b) the setup makes sense in the narrative and the player uses a different kind of action to set it up
Especially if players are split up into smaller groups or on their own, this allows them to get an edge by figuring out a clever way to enhance their chances.
Thanks for the answers, especially in regards to the second part of my question.
Since players always pick their actions, restricting what they can and can’t use as a follow up to a Set-Up doesn’t seem right to me.
Yeah, I don’t require different actions. For example, climbing around the rooftops and down the wall to get behind the guard (Prowl) can be used to setup the character to attack the guard from behind (Prowl) with extra effect.
Alfred Rudzki I can see where you are coming from, but this is the compromise we could all agree upon. If you allow the same actions as a setup, the lines between the actual action process and the setup become very blurry.
Take a look at what Oliver Granger described. The entire process of climbing around the rooftops, down the wall, get behind the guards and then attack them – thats 1 prowl roll in my book, not 2. The intention, from the beginning, is the ambush. Everything before it is part of the process to achieve this ambush. It is part of the narrative. This is different of course if the rooftops and getting to the location is a challenge / a complication in itself, that the player has to overcome in some way. But in that case, it is two separate prowl rolls but NOT a setup action for the ambush. At least thats my interpretation.
If you start allowing this, it can easily slow down the pace of the game for rolls that are not very interesting. Which isn’t wrong, or bad style, it is just not the compromise I want in my game. I like blades because it is elegant, it doesn’t require to roll the same action again and again to achieve something that can be resolved in a single dice roll.
A setup for yourself is a reward on my table. It rewards you for using your other actions in a smart way, it also most of the time tells you something about their character – it is a roleplaying opportunity to show how you characters deals with specific problems in an unorthodox way. What kind of ace he has up in his sleeve.
This is more about the flow and the feel of the game than it is about hard mechanics:
I like allowing setups with different actions because it encourages roleplaying and gives the players more opportunities to drive the situation forward. I dislike allowing to setup yourself with the same action, because those setups are always obvious (just start breaking down your actions into the small details of what ever you are doing) and undermine the design philosophy of “doing a lot with a single dice roll”.
But it’s not about your book. If the player wants to set up an ambush with Prowl, your input is the positioning. If they then execute that ambush with Prowl, your input is position and effect.
Obviously, whatever works for your table is what you gotta do; I support that, so don’t think I’m coming after you to fight. I’m just speaking specifically to the book, the rules, and how it seems like Set-Up ought to be handled. I don’t think what you’re doing in your game is bad, I just think there are interpretations closer to the spirit of BitD.
Alfred Rudzki Oh don’t worry, I get that. This is a healthy discussion to figure out if we can solve this or improve our shared understanding of the system ( to be better GMs), not a debate in which we have to find a winner.
I think if we start arguing about the spirit of the rules, as in the rules having another layer of meaning, things get convoluted very quickly. According to rules as written, using a setup action on yourself is clearly not intended in the book. A setup action is described as one of the teamwork actions, that are only available “(…) when the team of PCs works together, the characters have access to four special
teamwork maneuvers” (p.134.). This is reinforced by the last paragraph of the teamwork section: “(…) If your character can’t
communicate or somehow coordinate with the rest of the team, you can’t use or
benefit from any teamwork maneuvers.” (p.135)
So if we start allowing it (which I am clearly in favor of), we are already breaking the rules for other reasons. And I am doing this, because I think some of the design philosophies or GM principles are more important than some of the rules. In this instance, I value being a fan of the characters and enabling the players role playing more important, than the teamwork rules. But this is an area in which different design philosophies, or, lets borrow from innovation-theory here, multiple design paradigms clash. On one hand, I am a fan of the characters – but I am a fan of every character, of every player on my table. And this means that the flow of the game and creating a shared narrative that is interesting and engaging for every player, is important. And in my opinion this is by far the most important goal we have to aim for as GMs: Game flow and an engaging shared narrative. Now Blades, just like you say, also wants the player to have a lot of control over how they tackle any situation. They get to pick their actions and how they solve problems. But another design paradigm that ties into the game flow goal, is that Blades tries to combine many small actions into an intention / goal based conflict resolution system. This system condenses small narratives into a single dice roll.
Now by allowing players to use setup actions on themselves, I am a fan of their character. I give them more room to play with. But on the other hand, it might very easily lead to players breaking down their narrative into small steps, taking multiple low risk actions instead of narrating their intentions, how they want to get there and roll some dice. It opens up opportunities for the players to break the normal flow of the game. To get bogged down by rolls for multiple small actions which each are not as interesting for everyone else on the table. Since that is a situation I want to avoid if possible, I have to regulate it somehow. And the obvious solution for me was to restrict their setup move to a different action. It is different if you use two different kind of actions in my opinion. It feels more dynamic, it adds something to the storyline and encourages you to be creative with your character. It makes the setup action.. interesting.
Now, you are absolutely correct that this stands in conflict with a player having free choice about their actions. But it also enables them in their choice about how they can approach a situation. It is a minor inconvenience, a compromise, to get access to an option that should normally not be available to them.
You are correct that once an action is declared, the GMs role is to provide the position. But more importantly the GM is the intermediary between the rules, the players, the narrative and the game flow. Which after all makes it about my book, because these are the decisions a GM has to make: When do you call for a roll of a dice and how much simulation do you want to sacrifice for an engaging story and game flow? But this does not mean that I have found the perfect solution. I would be glad to hear if you do have a better one for my issues or if you can convince me why these problems are none for you.
Your point about Teamwork maneuvers, and how they require communication between team members to use, etc, is actually something I had forgotten about. Yeah, if we take that as a guideline then I think I would have to shift my stance to PCs can’t Set Up for themselves. In which case, I would just focus on traditional Action Rolls and how they can impact position and effect through the Fiction. I.e., things like “I want to pick his pocket” would have X Position and Y Effect, but the PC might Consort to get the target nice and drunk, changing the Fiction to make Pickpocketing Position X-1 and the Effect Y+1, all without saying the words “Set Up” at all.
Multiple set up actions are part of the game rules. As long as it makes sense in the fiction, it’s a smart way for characters to gain advantages over tough opponents. I don’t see the need for restricting players action choices.
If the play is not interesting, it’s not the GM’s job to regulate it into something interesting. Besides, a rules conversation is the wrong tool. Better to talk with everyone at the table about taking responsibility for the tone and style of the game, about roleplaying expressively and not just tactically.
Oliver Granger Multiple setup actions are not my problem and I think I have gone into quite some depth on this in my previous post. The problem for me exist if players start splitting up an action roll (which, by Blades nature, represents the entire process to achieve a specific goal: You don’t roll for every attack, you roll to skirmish with a group of goons and try to resolve the conflict through the dice) into small chunks just so they can benefit from a setup action. Which is something you might encourage if you allow a player to set himself up with the same action. Because on the flipside you discourage him from using the action roll mechanic to describe a process, instead of every small detail.
I do not get where your problem with the rules conversation is coming from. This is a topic that was created because Kelly Jolliffe had a question about the rules and how other GMs would think about the examples he provided. Which is exactly the right framework to talk about these things here. But even talking about our local tables – setting up guidelines and principles with your players is what you are doing by talking about it with your group. This is exactly how me thinking about setup moves started. Because my table asked me, if they can use this feature on their own. Which, according to the rules as written, they can’t. I think it is fruitful for the game to allow it, but do so in a way in which it does not encourage a behavior that clashes with the player guidelines / principles established by the game.
You might have the regulation thing upside down – you don’t regulate it into something interesting. You regulate it as a GM so less uninteresting things come up.
But then again, my entire work is about regulation. And maybe if you work all day with an hammer, everything starts looking like a nail.
As you might see though in my response to Alfred, I don’t view this as hard rule, that is used to deny people an advantage. On the flipside, this is principle that I have introduced on my table, like I said before – a compromise – that is supposed to encourage an interesting role playing session. Just like Blades does very often, like for example with its XP triggers. You are absolutely correct though: If this does not cause any problems for you on your table, then you really won’t have to restrict it. I know my players. While they are passionate roleplayers, they also adore mastering a system and using the mechanics to their advantage. Not in a mean-spirited kind of way. Simply because that is how they think about games.
Alfred Rudzki Yeah, while we talk about these things in very abstract and divisive terms here, in the end this is very much how it plays out on the table. The most important thing is keeping the narrative flowing and if the player has done something beforehand that gives him an advantage, I have never declined his better position or effect. This is more like a guideline, or a player principle for me. Something I want my players encourage to do. But the more we talk about this, the more I agree with you that there might just not be an issue here. I just like the idea of a setup move, because it is intention driven. The player is not forced to say: “I want to do x” without explaining why. A setup move gives him the option to say: “I want to do y, because afterwards I want to x from a better position.” Which is very clear and precise, both for the player and the GM. It enables the GM to make a better decision about possible positions and consequences. That was some very insightful input, thank you.
All I’m saying is I don’t agree with you and trying to explain why. No need to imply I’m failing to comprehend what you’ve said.
I don’t see there is a problem with splitting actions up into smaller chunks to benefit from a setup actions. I think that’s why the game has multiple set up actions: to make that a tactical option for players.
I don’t agree with allowing an action to be set up by a different action but not allowing an action to be set up by the same action: for aesthetic reasons or to dampen tactical play or whatever. They seem to me to have the same advantages and disadvantages.
I mention rules conversation only because you’re talking about the GM needing to regulate player behaviour, which I think implies rules and rules enforcement. And all I’m saying is making it “so less uninteresting things come up” seems to be more a problem with mismatched expectations between people at the table, rather than an issue with the game rules. I only mention it because you specifically asked for other solutions/perspectives. No worries if you don’t agree.
If your approach works for you, great! I’ll just do something different.
Oliver Granger Just thought about your input and I think you are correct that this might indeed be a bandaid solution for a problem that my players and I have been trying to tackle in our last few playsessions. It seems to be quite counterintuitive for some players coming from other roleplaying system to “do” so much with a single diceroll. Our pacing is fine as soon as clocks start filling the table because those provide some kind of scale, how much of an impact a single action has. But before that, when players are dictating the pace in a more direct way, some of my players start thinking in very small steps. It is not even that they want to do this. We talked about it, about how detailed they wanna play each scene. They are simply unsure of how much they can ask which each diceroll, how big the “scope” of the actions they describe can be. I am not sure if I am articulating this very well, it feels to me like my explanation is missing something. I believe that managing their understanding of the situation and providing a better scale of how much they can do with each action is my responsibility as the GM. They have clearly articulated that they enjoy the game more, when I push the game into a faster paced narrative in which we zoom in and out of the action in a way that mirrors Movies or TV Series. But they tend to fall back into old habits as soon as they take narrative control. It is quite hard to describe.
Yep I have definitely had that experience too. Another thing to consider is the GM best practices discussion on zooming the action in an out. Essentially, the game is fairly flexible on the scope of action rolls. Progress clocks are definitely one way to make the scope explicit and I use them all the time. Another is when the GM judges position and effect level. That is really all about setting the scope. After working out if people are interested in the nitty gritty or not, it can help to just translate what a single roll can cover in the fiction.
For example, if you want to zoom out, instead of just saying you have standard effect picking the lock, expand on that and say, “This means a single roll here will let you pick this lock, avoid the boat patrol, safely travel down the internal canal, find the hidden passage you’ve identified on the blueprints, and sneak into the foundry without being identified.” On the other hand, if instead you want to zoom in you can say “It’s a grated Knoppix Triple Bolt setup, Tier IV quality. They really don’t want people getting through this watergate. I’m drawing a six-segment clock for this lock, two segments for each bolt apparatus. The quality difference means from a controlled position you start with zero effect, but can bump that up if you take extra time, have fine gear, etc. Of course the guard change will only delay the patrol for so long… (drawing perimeter patrol clock)”.
For what it’s worth, I was and still am leaning toward a character being able to perform an appropriate setup action for themselves despite it being, explicitly, a teamwork roll. To me, it’s more that the opposite makes less sense, narratively speaking, than the mentioned alternative.
But as for how granular I’d want to make those particular actions, well, it’s as Oliver Granger said: it depends on the player or group. Like Oliver Smock, I’d prefer to lean more toward the macro than the micro, but I’m not opposed to stepping back a bit and playing out certain, highly specific actions if the group thinks that’s a better pace for them, or even just for the singular action in question.
It’s probably worth noting that the rule book includes an example of someone using set-up to tear some armor off a wagon. Fictionally, it would be ridiculous to say this person could not then follow through on their own set-up.