I have some thoughts on special abilities. Previously I’ve stayed away from commenting on these, and quietly substituted my own. But we’re really getting close to finished, and I do have some thoughts to share.
I’m just going to do the Cutter as an example. These are my thoughts, and I am more interested in triggering your thoughts than arguing about any of this; it does me little good to establish whether you agree with me or not. =)
It seems to me that the flavor text is often hindering or misleading relative to the mechanical effect. If the mechanical effect is sufficiently useful or interesting, it doesn’t really need to be packaged in much flavor text.
“Brutal” would be just fine stating “You gain +1 potency against physical targets.” From that, you KNOW the attack is “more powerful.” And maybe it is not because you emulate a heavier weapon; maybe you’re good at hitting weak points, or you have a mean streak. The flavor pulls the ability down there. (Also, since “factors” include potency, quality, and scale, gaining potency is not like “do you have potency yes/no” but more like one factor to consider, and each one on a scale, so yeah; add “plus one” in there.)
Resolute: what is a “level” of healing? Don’t answer me, put it in the description. =) And how does an emotional state communicate a regenerative ability as a special ability title? Might Resilient or Quick Healer fit better? Maybe instead this special ability allows you to address a lasting condition once as a free action per down time cycle.
Savage: This writeup requires you to use a specific action to gain an additional die, ONLY after you’ve made an example of someone. That’s difficult and abstract. I would suggest you gain +1d when using wild violent or brutal methods (not precise use of force). OR, it could be fun to suggest that violent dangerous situations are 1 level more controlled for this character. (Or make that a special ability called “Chaotic.”)
Ghost Fighter: I would just say you can focus your life energy to affect incorporeal targets normally with your body or held weapons, and to add 1d when battling corporeal supernatural elements.
Not to be Trifled With: The title seems a mismatch to me. There are LOTS of reasons ANY character is not to be trifled with, that don’t have to do with mass combat. Let’s aim closer to the mark. Combat Mobility, or Crowd Fighting, or One Against Many. Also, ignoring Scale gets weird in a hurry if they are seriously outmatched. Ignore it altogether? For everyone on the team? Because of one special ability? Better to suggest that this special ability allows the character +1 scale, so the character fights as a gang.
Leader: I’d change that to “Lead From the Front.” Also, it’s great that they don’t break; but nothing compels them to break but fiction. So that’s protecting against an un-mechanized consequence. Adding armor from morale? Hm. Instead, I’d think about the gang getting 1 potency upgrade from the character’s presence, and allowing the character to use individual gang members as points of armor!
.
I like Andrew thoughts! ‘Not to be Trifled With’ is more of an AW nod, the Gunlugger’s NOT TO BE F***’D WITH is similar. And in AW you can easily say that no character is to be trifled with; but especially not the person who takes that playbook ability/move. I agree that ‘Ignore scale’ is a little strong (cutter vs giant army). I would probably just communicate that to a player taking the ability; they can probably fight a large gang, but probably not all the gangs at once. (And one vs a large gang is a little on the Epic Craziness side, but I’m down with that in my games.)
I have the advantage of not being steeped in Apocalypse World, so maybe I can help see where some borrowings are out of context.
I feel like both player and GM have an advantage when a power’s intent and wording are mostly clear and bounded. They can be interpreted beyond those bounds if it interests the table, but you run into fewer situations where what the player expected and what the GM expected vary widely.
I know that’s more of an issue for me than for many players here, but I like to keep the friction where it belongs and not so much between players over rulings.
I know that as a player I get itchy when I read a special ability and then the GM tells me that what it says is not really what it means.
Agree 100%. We’ve had these same colour text limitation chats at our table a lot. My 2c.
I’ll clarify. Sometimes we as a group also feel that the flavour text seems to act as a fictional limitation when it doesn’t need to.
Thanks for the feedback, Andrew. I’ll consider all these proposed changes. A couple notes:
– Each special ability will be fully explained elsewhere in the book.
– The “color” phrases are not always simply color, and they’re not always requirements or causes for mechanical effects. Fictional effects and mechanical effects are presented together in some abilities, but they’re distinct effects. The mechanical effect isn’t merely a summary of the fictional phrases.
For example, Savage. The special ability grants you two effects.
Effect 1: When you make an example of someone, your opponents lose heart.
Effect 2: When you Command their fear, take +1d.
Those effects are related, but not causal. The first phrase isn’t a requirement for the second phrase. It’s an effect all its own. I can see how they seem to be causal, so I’ll revise the text to make it more clear. In short: when you roll Command against someone who’s afraid, you take +1d. You don’t have to “make an example of someone” first. If the ability worked this way, it would say, “After you make an example of someone with brutal violence, take +1d to a Command roll.”
Same goes for Brutal. “You hit as if wielding a heavier weapon,” is a fictional effect, not simple ‘color’ for the potency. This effect means, for instance, that you can say that you try to smash apart a metal padlock with your bare hands (they act like a heavier weapon, like a hammer). Or you hit someone with a thrown dagger and send them tumbling backwards off a rooftop, as if you’d hit them with a heavy blow. The ability has three separate effects. +1 potency is one of the effects, not the result of the other phrases.
Here’s a re-write for Savage:
When you unleash physical violence, it’s especially frightening. When you Command a frightened target, take +1d.
I’m gonna be that guy: is there a new draft (open here on G+) or a new quickstart?
I’m gonna insist on the wording since I think it’s still hard to understand the two are not related. I don’t know what could be better however…
The easiest would be to have each distinct element of a special ability have a nested point.
Savage. You excel at physical brutality.
* When you unleash physical violence, it is especially frightening.
* When you Command a frightened target, add 1d.
I don’t know how practical that is for what you want to do, but it’s really clear.
Heng benjamin This is the newest one I know of, it was linked in the comments of an event.
http://onesevendesign.com/blades/blades_quickstart_v3f.pdf
Yeah, like I said, I intend to write full explanations for each special ability (with examples) in the appropriate chapter, so hopefully that will make everything clear.
So special abilities will have a summary on the playbook, but also refer back to something bigger deeper in the text?
I would be more favorably inclined towards taking the space you need on the playbook, and not having the ability listed twice.
Unless the character sheet did not have ANY special abilities on it, and they were pulled from a larger pool of which these were samples. Then that changes things, of course.
So much of the game is open to interpretation, I would hesitate to suggest that special abilities each need lots of explanation and examples.
I’ve been wondering, too, how big the book is currently expected to be, both in dimensions and pagecount.
I think a short explanation of why colour is just as powerful narratively as mechanical effect would be a good inclusion to the rules too.
Different players will leverage different flags of their playbook for story weight and that’s cool! For me, ‘just for colour’ has no deficit on say, a +1 Bonus. In fact, it is often fictionally more powerful in terms of narrative control.
Nathan Roberts That was one of the big problems with White Wolf for me. The description for 4 in Dexterity might say you could juggle knives, but if you tried to roll for it, you were gonna bleed.
That’s one thing I like about Blades in the Dark. Narrative IS very powerful in this game. Which is really why it matters what the text says, it is not fluff. If the text says you hit as a heavier object, then you’re limited to that. Not aiming for weaker points, or expressing that in a variety of ways, but no–this is the one way it comes across. (And there are other possible applications that could be really cool but get cut off by this.)
To me it is not contradictory to want clarity in some places and be fine with ambiguity in others. The inconsistency has to do with my play style, and that’s true for most people who bring a game like this to the table. We put importance in different places.
I just want it to be easy for all the players to get roughly the same picture of how a special ability works.
As always Andrew Shields, your eloquence humbles me. I wish I had your vernacular sometimes 🙂
I agree on all your points, and John Harper is obviously working hard on the final draft. This ‘version’ of the rules when finally in print is gonna ROCK so hard. I can’t wait to see the final art too 🙂
Thanks, Nathan Roberts!
I can honestly say I have liked every iteration better than the one that came before, overall. This game is great, and I believe the final version is going to be beautiful.
Thanks, guys.
Btw, Andrew, you can “hit as if wielding a heavier weapon” by aiming at weak points. Just sayin’. 🙂
Evocative of “Not to be Trifled With” is Spirit of 77’s version, “One at a Time or All At Once”. It recalls the 70s way of fighting a mook swarm.