A few thoughts on “setting effect.” I’m looking at page 22 of the quickstart version 4 print friendly version. Either I have it wrong, or the example does.
When I have run Blades in the Dark, I have not discussed setting the effect “level” as part of the expectations I share with the players. (I think the example MEANS to talk about factors, not effect levels.)
As I see it, a player character tries to do something, and what we intend the result will be BECOMES the full effect. If they get limited effect, the result is less than what they were trying to do. Greater effect is more than what they were trying to do.
The effect is what they were trying to do. What that means can be adjusted up or down, but that’s the full effect.
This is where I get itchy in assigning limited effect or greater effect before the dice are rolled.
The advantage of a fiction first system is that the “effect” has no independent meaning. “Full effect” is you get what you were after when you made the action roll.
As GM, that means I can negotiate for what “full effect” represents. Take the example in quickstart 4 printer friendly version page 22. In the example, the GM says the situation is difficult, so he will have a limited effect.
In previous versions, what I would do there is to say that the situation is difficult, so if you’re successful the most you can reasonably hope for is to convince him to give you the amulet in exchange for something, and the terms are not likely to be favorable.
If the player and the GM are cool with that, then you roll; if you get a failure then the conversation is over and you don’t get what you want. Limited effect might be the conversation continuing, but the position escalates to desperate. Full effect would be bargaining for the amulet, but at a steep cost. Critical success would be to get the amulet in exchange for a minor cost, or a symbolic act.
In the current version on page 22, the GM pre-ordains that the player is aiming for a limited effect because of challenges. What happens when the player rolls a limited success? Is there a subsection there of limited success within limited success? Unlikely. More likely, the GM is not being clear, and the action will have a -1 effect due to the potency of the boss’s backup. (So, just say THAT.)
I like the idea that the “effect” is what the player is trying to get out of the situation, and not modifying that with game terms until the roll comes out.
I see the merit in what you’re saying. But the game (in its current version) (in my take on it, which could always be off) seems to say that Effect is partly a result of what’s established in the fiction by GM and PC, and partly a result of very explicit factors in the playbook / scene notes.
If I’m using my industry standard lockpicks to crack a Tier III faction’s locks, and no other factors mitigate, the game seems pretty clear that my effect will be Limited, regardless of what the GM and I negotiate.
Honestly, I’d find it easier to use your version. “Okay, you’re Not To Be Trifled With and you’re wielding a Fine Heavy Weapon, but these goons are also heavily armed and armored? Okay, this is a Daring position, and Standard effect will … erm … floor one of them and hurt but not take down another. We’ll figure out Limited or Great effect if the dice dictate. Sound reasonable?”
./
John Perich I looked at page 10 in the quickstart 4 printer friendly version to see more on effect, and you’re right. Still, that raises questions for me.
If it was a matter of assigning a level up or down on the effect rating the roll generated, that makes sense to me. It’s easy to do.
But what happens if you roll a limited effect on a limited effect? There’s this sub-negotiation required by assigning effect THEN rolling to determine effect, then reconciling the two.
I like having “standard effect” negotiated, then modifying with dice and factors. I think you get to the same place, and it’s simpler. Otherwise I’m stuck (as GM) ruling on “limited compared to what?”
If we’re talking picking a lock (for example) I’d rather kick it up from a simple action to a 4 segment clock to represent it’s tougher, rather than saying the most you can hope for is one segment on a full success, and limited success on a limited success is basically failure (because we can’t go lower than 1 segment at a time.)
Sub.
Andrew Shields that’s a fair question. I’ve avoided it in my games by never assigning Reduced Effect as a complication when the effect is already Limited.
The game also says (pg 10, QS v4, print-friendly) that effect can be reduced below Limited to zero. I don’t know how much I like that. I feel like the social contract of letting the player pick up the dice and seeing them roll a 4 or 5 means that they earn _some_thing. But apparently it’s an option!
I’ve already told my players, explicitly, that effect will never be modified below Limited or enhanced above Great. This is largely to save me the effort of juggling multiple factors in my head, especially with the murderous Cutter, but also to create some useful barriers on the sandbox that is Effect.
I haven’t been very good at figuring out factors and how to use them smoothly since the beginning. In a game so fiction-oriented and rules-lite they just never clicked for me as being more useful than troublesome. (I admit that as my bias.)
Again, I’m not saying it’s broken the way it is, it just doesn’t fit in my head like it needs to for fast, fair, improvisational play. That may not reflect on the rules, it likely reflects on my head.
Andrew Shields I’m with you and I’d prefer to do it the same way. I just feel bad for my PCs who’ve spent hard-earned ticks on fine gear or Playbook moves that give them potency or armor if I ignore the mechanical implications of those.
It’s not too too hard for me, but I’m still climbing the learning curve.
I absolutely think honoring “fine” gear and factors is good. However, I would simplify it and go a different direction with it, just a bit.
I suspect that we’re all doing pretty much the same things in play. The explanations and examples might not be clear enough yet.
I’m all for simplifying this aspect of the game. As always, I’m happy to hear thoughts on changes.
Here is where I hesitate. It is one thing to look for clarity because I think I may not understand. It is also possibly useful to discuss point of view and ideas.
However, without actual play experience behind my ideas, I’m reluctant to RECOMMEND anything. So, here are some ideas I’m happy to share, but I’m not to the point of saying they would work better than what’s in place. This is just what I think would make it easier for me.
1. NOT adjust effect levels before rolling. Let the effect stand in for what the player expects to accomplish with success, and negotiate that fictionally. Then use factors to adjust the effect level up and down.
2. Have gear that is Fine and Masterwork. Fine vs. Fine cancel each other out. Masterwork vs. Masterwork cancel each other out. Masterwork ignores Fine, treating it as normal gear, retaining the advantage over it. Then push that concept out to scale and potence; there’s a better level, and a best level. The only reason you need the best level is to counter the opposition’s best level, or ignore their better level.
Then if you figure the higher tier target paid top dollar for masterwork stuff then that’s what you’re up against. A noble family could have masterwork stuff even without the backing of a huge organization, and a huge organization could get by with shoddy stuff because high-end merchandise is not their focus.
I think about the Lampblacks and the Red Sashes. The Red Sashes would put their Coin into the very best weapons, and small but elite purchases. Where the Lampblacks would compete through scale, rough and tumble and not expensive, but numerous and influential with their support base.
Different factions are different, and not all use a Tier 2 advantage the same way.
Anyway, that’s my thought. Thanks for asking.
I think, Andrew Shields, that you are doing what the rules say without realizing it. I think the gist of the section on establishing “standard effect” is essentially, “what can the PCs do in this game”. You probably already have either assumptions or longstanding habits that are answering this for you, but it still needs to be answered. It’s especially relevant when dealing with clocks, I think.
Option one tends to be how I do it. The player tells me how much effect they want, and that tends to set their position. If you want great effect, and you have limited tools, time, then that means your desperate. If you’ve got great tools and all the time in the world and you want full effect, you dominant.
EDIT: For clarity, I still SET the effect level before rolling, but I set that based on the player’s expectations of what they want to achieve with their roll.
“Establish what’s standard then bump it up or down with factors” is how I do it, too. That’s what’s happening in the example when the GM says ‘limited effect’ — it’s a kind of shorthand. The player wanted X (which is standard effect), but due to factors it’s bumped down.
I think the shorthand is a bit confusing in spots, though. I’ll see if I can clarify it by being more explicit. Showing that there’s a fictional goal that’s established first (the standard effect in this case) and then that gets modified by factors.
W.D. Presoctt Yep, that’s exactly correct.
We found this a little hard to parse too Andrew, especially after previous versions of adding DICE rather than EFFECT.
After some adjustment (one session) its smooth. I think as John accepts, the examples need some clarification, put in actual play, reminding ourselves that zero effect is a quite possible narrative outcome and the best way to mitigate that is through escalating to a desperate action for increased effect.
The thin edge of the scoundrel’s wedge is a Desperate Action for Zero effect, but hey, if you go through with it, you still get XP!
After sleeping on it, I think I can put my finger on what’s troubling me.
In short, “limited effect” is a specific game term, not just a note that effect will be limited. Once it becomes jargon, representing something specific, then it becomes important to use the term precisely.
“Limited effect” is a result and “-1 effect level” is a modifier.
“Limited effect” is in the context of “failure, limited effect, full effect, and increased effect.” The term “limited effect” points to a result level before rolling. A modifier, on the other hand, adjusts a result up or down after it is generated.
With a modifier you don’t say the roll will have a limited effect, then generate a limited effect and downgrade it to a failure. Or generate an increased effect, and downgrade it to a full effect, which doesn’t connect to the term “limited effect” at all.
I believe that’s the root of my difficulty here.
Seriously, players tell me what they do, they roll and THAN, I tell them how effective they were. Than adding up modifiers. Scale, Quality, Potency.
I dont get whats the problem.
Crit adds potency + 1
6 is a standard effect (2)
4-5 is limited effect (1)
Than the modifier may do their thing
Players do need to know what modifiers will come into play before they roll, to avoid a “gotcha” moment where the task was harder than they realized and they took a bigger risk than they intended to.
From what John Harper said in the above comments, I think we were doing the same thing but using different terminology for it.
Well I do that narratively, sure. But simetimes their characters estimation is just wrong 🙂
Well, most if the time i tell them if its looking like a normal, easy or difficult task. Than they tell me what they use for it (scale/quality/potency) and than they roll abd I tell them what real effect it will have.
Me too Vandel. Its just that before the gang were always clamouring for extra dice, whereas now they are trying to manipulate the effect.
I rather like this new way, I must admit.