Just curious…. How much do you feel that the Score selection should be played driven? We’re still running with training wheels at this point, and my plan was to offer two different opportunities from different ways and let the players pick one (or go of on a different tangent if they wish, say going for turf). I’m just wondering how much per-planning of scores happens by the GM when things start moving naturally.
Just curious.
Just curious.
I usually have 2 prepared score that I offer them during free play (i prepeare just the basics: payout, main obstacle etc.) but I always stress that they can go for whatever they choose. And they pick their own method and detail, which is sometimes very different from what I preconcieved, and leads to a wholly different kind of score, which is fine.
In the five sessions that we had so far, they picked my “prepared” scores 3 times, once they went for a claim that they picked (turf), and once they invented their own score based on an opportunity arising in fiction.
Note that the scores that I prepare are also heavily based on the ongoing story, i.e. the consequences of their previous actions (or inactions).
My experience is that a good, interesting, character-driven free play leads to an interesting score, regardless of whether it’s prepared or not.
Personally I feel the ideal state of the game is that there’s a lot going on and the players choose what interests them. They want outcomes, and the GM helps shape scores that work towards those outcomes (if the score itself isn’t obvious.) The PCs do scores that achieve goals in addition to getting paid, as part of working out their own agenda.
I like having back-up scores for quick cash or to take advantage of an opportunity (opportunities are problems in disguise) that complicates their lives. It is okay to derail them sometimes, if they’re tough enough to pull the action back their way.
If I have players who want to be offered a menu of scores, then I try to discourage that; they could have had all the work for hire they wanted as part of another crew, but they wanted to form their own, so… go do what you want to do!
If they want to do hired work, maybe during generation process give them the option to be a gang for someone else’s crew instead.
My instinct is to get to the heist, to get to the action, and downplay the time spent on interpersonal drama and embroidering back story; let it come out in play! So for one reticent group I ran for, they just shopped around for work until after a couple sessions I encouraged them to come up with their own scores. It was painful for me to be patient and let the process take the time the players needed to take, but at the end of it we started doing heists that reflected what the crew wanted; it was worth the discomfort and patience.
I always plan the rough outline of a potential score for the first session, in case the players don’t have any ideas. I’ve never used them. If the players don’t have any immediate ideas, they will invariably look at their sheets, see their enemy/rivals, pick one at random, and embark on a quest to ruin the rival’s life in any way they can. And once the first score is in motion, things snowball and they wind up with enemies and goals that motivate future scores. Once things get moving, there is almost always an obvious score for the players to go on without any real thought or planning on my end. If it ever stalls, the desire to mess with personal rivals never fails to jumpstart things again.
Occasionally players will decide they need to take a break from whatever their current large-scale goal is to just make some cash, in which case they’ll basically ask me for a place to rob that will pay out well. It’s never been a problem to whip up a museum heist or a bank job off the top of my head, and most times I can even relate it to their larger goals.
I don’t think we were offered scores after session 1; we very quickly fell into momentum of “we GOTTA do this next!” and often, had a tough time choosing between our many self-appointed goals. I imagine any good campaign will get there eventually.
Rebecca’s right, our game was VERY player driven. It wasn’t so much that they weren’t offered scores, more that they actively followed up on in-game leads that led to scores organically presenting themselves.
I’ve found the first couple sessions are quite a bit different from the third or fourth onward. I’ve had a couple different Score opportunities in my back pocket since the early sessions in case they’re needed, but every recent Score has been driven by the players following something that came up out of an Entanglement scene or from one of the players asking questions about one of the clocks on the table reaching or nearing completion.
As a GM, I’ve found I can get so much out of just working on my proficiency with the tools and priorities offered by the system than spending much time thinking about details associated with any opportunities I might explicitly put before the other players.
The web of NPCs and interests expands so profusely in Blades it quickly becomes more a matter of what are the PCs forced to lay aside when pursuing the things of most immediate interest to them.
I think all the plans in my game were player driven, or close to all. I usually start the game with a “that what’s going on in the city in general this week, and that guy just sort of tried to fuck with you”
They usually have a Target and a plan few minutes after that, then come madness.
As the GM in two Blades Game, I see my role as characterizing existing NPCs, following up on player made hooks, and expanding on their own ideas for scores. Otherwise I essentially have the same amount of agency as any other individual player character in creation, which is quite a bit.