Noob question: when tracking position in a score, how often does shifting then independently of rolls come up? In other words, once a base position is set, is shifting it in the hands of the GM (based on consequences of rolls) or players (based on Devil’s Bargains or trading for effect), or is GM fiat still something to consider?
This probably seems like a really silly question, but I want to understand a proper way to run things. It seems to me that the spirit of the rules indicate that the position should flow from rolls and choices, because these are things that can be resisted, and provide some player control over the tension.
Follow up: when the party splits during a score, should position be tracked for each sub-group, or for the score as a whole?
In the rules, the GM sets position for the current roll based on the circumstances (p19). After the GM sets position and effect, the player can try to trade position for effect or vice versa, worsening one to increase the other (p26).
There’s no long-term tracking of position. I’ve seen some discussions about adding it, but it’s not part of the core rules.
Thanks. It seems to me that keeping the Positions consistent is in the spirit of the rules as
1. Most rolls offer a worsening of Position as an option
2. Players can trade Effect for Position
2a. A player opting to choose to trade for a better Position, only to throw that out the window in a fit of GM Fiat, seems like a jerk move.
Jamie Keane you’d want to avoid tracking position because it flies in the face of player choice, in this case. Position is based on fictional reasonability; a scoundrel can pick any action at any time, but not every action is equally good. I may be in a good position to talk the leader of a rival gang down because I have connections and moxy and have terrible position to shoot him (because he’s behind body guards and I have no gun) or attune to him (because he’s sensitive and would be able to resist).
Position should always flow from the narrative. Blades is expressly fiction-first, and even uses the example of “think of the mechanics of the game as told in a toolbox. There’s no point in saying ‘I hammer it’ until you know what you’re building.” The game mechanics (position) should not be tracked because the mechanic should not inform the fiction that directly. If the situation is still dire, that should be obvious because of how the GM is establishing scenes – and the Scoundrels are still free to have a plan so brilliantly sideways that they turn that bad situation on its head and come out risky or controlled (or blunder so hard they end up risky while dominating the scene).
The player describes the action of his character, and the GM determines position and effect level based on the fiction.
Let’s make an exaggerated example: the character wants to find out the number of people in the enemy headquarter by reading tea leaves. That is attune, and the GM declares the action as controlled with no effect.
Of course the player can then try to think of ways to make the action risky or desperate to gain some effect after all (maybe paying to a forgotten god or something).
The engagement roll is a special case: to skip the boring stuff the score starts in the moment the shit hits the fan. The position of the very first action in the score is determined by the engagement roll.
But after that, the GM is free to determine position and effect level as he thinks it reasonable.
Jörg Mintel thank you for clarifying it. (And thanks as well for all of the great responses)
I guess what threw me was the engagement roll. It’s a random chance to determine how the start of the score, and I felt as though it was good practice to keep that flow going.
I still believe that keeping some loose track of the position is a good idea from a narrative perspective. If I, as GM, just begin to arbitrarily change Position, I don’t feel like that respects the characters and negates the players’ choices. If the players are burning through Stress to keep things Controlled, I as a GM should respect that because that’s the story they’re wanting to tell. (It’s probably a doomed cause, because Pushing and especially Resisting is expensive, but hey, it could happen) If I need to adjust, it should make sense and be something the players can support.
Heck no, nuts to “the story.” Play to find out! Position is based on fictional circumstance — if they try something far out and risky as heck, the position should reflect that, not some idea of a cool story or a cool narrative that is being presumed (except, technically, in so far as position reinforces the tone of your game, be it deadly and hardscrabble or pulpy and highflying).
Alfred Rudzki Hitchcock I don’t disagree, but I see that this is a case that the GM needs to go with the flow and support what the players are aiming to do. Arbitrarily changing Position seems like an antagonistic thing to do, and (I think) BitD is not a game with an “antagonistic GM” mindset.
So if the players are playing cautiously, biting through Stress to keep things Controlled, they’re signaling the tone of the story they are trying to tell. It’s probably counter to the spirit of BitD, but it’s something I’m considering.
I bring this all up because my group is used to somewhat antagonistic GMing, and they’re going to scrutinize shifts in Position as “uh oh, the GM is gonna screw us over”. I want to make sure that I internalize the best practices so I can nip their hesitation and worry in the proverbial bud, and allow them to help tell the story of daring heists with self-destructive scoundrels.
But they’re not arbitrary changes — if the GM is doing their job, they reflect the fiction. I would recommend talking to the players about expectations over trying to preempt habits, personally. Obviously your table varies though.
Ok, I read the book a little more over a work break, and I’m coming up with a couple things I can use for a decision-making workflow. I think I’m getting closer to “getting it”.
* The existing Position is a good context for the current one, but not immutable. If the fiction as it is now makes sense for a shift, change it. I need to make sure I back up these shifts with narrative justification, because otherwise I’m just being a jerk to the players, and nobody wants that.
* This group in question being more comfortable with “traditional” gaming (where mechanics are considered first, then filtered through the lens of the fiction), I’ll probably want to lean on the tangible, crunchy aspects of the system to justify more flagrant shifts. Stuff like Clocks, Devil’s Bargains, etc. (this is in no way saying that I should run BitD this way all of the time – I’m just trying to get out in front of concerns/frustrations the more systems-loving folks at the table might have)
* I will encourage the players to play brashly and not overplan like we would in, say, Shadowrun or something that’s similarly rooted in a traditional GM-player relationship. I’ll ask them questions to make sure the story as I’m adjudicating it makes sense.
* I think the thing that I was hung up on was the idea of a 4-5 on an Action Roll providing the option of worsened Position. The example in the book suggests a good way to model a second attempt at an action, and I was misreading it as an idea for keeping Position consistent. I think my previous bullet point covers it, and keeping a check on the current Position is just good GMing.
Thanks for answering all of this. BitD is a very different mode of GMing than I’m used to, and I have to relearn a lot of concepts.