One thing that confuses me: Action rolls cover the the PCs’ effect and the NPC reaction. I.e., the PC accomplishes their goal or not. On choosing an action, the GM sets position and effect.
But what happens when the PCs don’t know about the opponent’s abilities before making a choice of taking action. If the GM then tells them the effect and position, they now know something outside of the game, and may change their mind about the action?
I note the rules say a PC might need to make a resistance roll against an extremely skilled opponent, but the same problem applies.
In most cases, you try to drop clues about an NPC, but often the lack of knowledge is a natural situation.
Would declaring an action constitute a no-take-backsies-situation? I guess it could work, but I could also picture tempers rising around the table.
If the players seem taken aback that an action is desperate with limited effect, take a chance to remind them that they can push themselves for effect, do setup actions, etc. Also, if a group seems hesitant to do any desperate actions, remind them of that sweet, sweet, desperate XP.
No I dont ever say once you declare an action it is a no-take-backsies situation. The only time it becomes final is when the dice hit the table. Up until then all elements should be openly discussed. You and the rest of the players at the table discuss position and effect and WHY things are that way, and then the player gets to decide if they want to roll dice or not.
Same thing applies to making resistance rolls prior to a roll. If a PC says they want to do a thing, the GM can say
“Alright but because of X reason you need to make a resistance roll first”
The PC is not stuck in the roll yet because dice havent been rolled. They can still say,
“Oh shit I didnt realize that I am going to try another approach”
Hope that helps.
In some of the videos about hacking the game, it seemed pretty clear that the players are supposed to be able to rethink the approach and action in the situation you outlined above. Blades isn’t a game that seems as concerned with players learning things outside their character’s in game knowledge.
Lack of knowledge on the part of the characters is one thing. it is not the same as lack of knowledge on the part of the players.
There is nothing wrong with the players know more.
In fact Blades works very good with the assumption that both the player and GM are clear about what an action does.
Sure, the occasional surprise is fun, but for most actions the player should know what to expect.
Like ther others said. No problem if they pull back. Trust between the GM and the players is at core. and You can assume there was a lack of knowledge from the characters once the dices are rolled and they got a partial success or a miss.
I would add that generally, a miss is about a lack of knowledge (or a lack of luck), not a lack of skills. Because the characters are very good at what they are doing. A miss is about something else.
I could see use of fortune dice also a way to approach this issue.
Thanks folks. I’m perhaps still stuck a little in traditional RPGs to balk a bit at the idea of “eventual perfect information” for the players, but I get the point. I forgot about the desperate XP, which is indeed a nice motivator. I definitely see that there needs to be a good measure of trust and common commitment around the table, but hey, we’re all there to have fun.
Yep! Blades has been influenced by Apocalypse World (but have a definitly more accessible learning curve). In Apocaplyse World a very important paradigm shift is “Always do what honesty demand” (p.81 of Aw 2nd Ed). I think there is no problem if I quote a paragraph of this specific section:
“Always be scrupulous, even generous, with the truth. The players depend on you to give them real information they can really use, about their character’s surroundings, about what’s happening when and where. (…) The players are entitled to the full benefits of their moves, their rolls, their character’s strenghts and resources. Don’t chisel them, don’t weasel, don’t play gotcha”.
The threats are totally embedded in the system, no need to use the players’s lack of knowledge. It’s a paradigm shift for us old schools when most of the game, such as vampire or Cthulhu, explicitly told us to manipulate the PC to create a tension. Here, the tension is not in the asymetry of information between the MC and the PC. Give the PC what they earned, and what they deserve. But put the characters in difficult stuffs!
The result of the roll creates the difficulty, nothing else! Same for the planifications: there is no better plan, don’t trick them if they make a “assault” plan when you think a “social” plan would be better. No plan is in itself better than anyone: in the end, they roll the same number of dices, the result will tell if they are in danger or not, by telling in which position they are.
The important point here is that the players accept this and accept to take risks!
When players are surprised by the position or effect that I lay out for them, that is more often than not a failure on my part as the GM to accurately describe what the characters know to the players. If my players ask why the roll is the way it is, I will tell them. If they think I’m missing some information, they will tell me. Once everyone knows as much as they’d like to know, the player can choose to roll or not. I might say something along the lines of “There is something you don’t know here that make this harder” but only rarely, and I fully expect my players to want to start gathering info shortly thereafter.