So, we played and two of my players aren’t fans. Some of that is my fault as I probably made consequences too harsh. The other complaint was that you rarely succeed without a consequence. As a GM, I love it.
Anyway, one sticking point was what’s considered a “tough challenge”. Any advice would be appreciated.
They never played wfrp, didn’t they? 😀
MisterTia86Â “Your arm has been hacked off at the shoulder. Without medical attention, you will bleed out in 1d10 rounds. A pool of blood spreads out 1d10 feet around you; anyone entering this area must pass an agility test or slip over.” They were simpler, gorier, d100-based times…
Does Blades even have rounds?Â
I should make some kind of Hammers in the Dark hack.
Ben Liepis : there’s no clear definition of a “tough challenge”, but if it’s something risky and/or complicated I say it qualifies.
Always keep in mind that they can make Resistance rolls to reduce (or eliminate, if circumstances allow) the consequence. The roll should come after the description of what’s coming at them and modify. It accordingly, so they know what they just narrowly avoided.
Sounds like their may be a disconnect between you and your players about how gritty the game should be, so maybe that’s worth a discussion. Besides that, are your players using teamwork actions? Teamwork really helps make successes come more frequently at those cost of a little extra stress. When I GMed my first game I think I used harm too frequently as the consequence to rolls, which can be overly harsh and not that exciting after awhile. Make sure you have a mix of consequences, and sometimes give your players options between two, or even let them offer their own.
After careful thought, I think they’re just not the group for it. They don’t like success with consequence. They want to just succeed. Any pinch bothers them and they don’t see the awesome drama as fun. Oh, well.
That said, I’m still going to learn to GM it the best I can, hopefully for another group.
I full-well admit to being too heavy-handed at times and that I need more practice. Even after we discussed the hurdles and “bruises” from learning and how to manage tone, there was a dislike of succeeding with consequences. They wanted to succeed, pure and simple, with no consequences, more than they do. They don’t like the pinch, and it’s not just in Blades.
That doesn’t make them bad people, bad gamers or apply anything negative, I simply feel it may not be their game. After it’s out, I really hope the group will give it an honest chance. We shall see!
As for me, I love it so far. As a GM I am totally digging having something so new and different to sink my creative teeth into. I really like how different Blades is to anything I’ve run before.
As I mentioned, it’s not just Blades. There’s frustration in other games when things don’t pan out well (but not in a jerkish, petulant way). I need to learn how to adjust what I call the “Darkness Dial”. Some might be their newness to RPGs. Even so, they are kick-ass people and I love gaming with them.
I’ve GM’d so long, out of necessity and then out of joy, that I have a hard time playing (which suits 99% of the gamers I play with!). I’m not some super-GM or master storyteller, but I’d like to think I’m pretty good. I can grok new games quickly and create stuff with little to no prep. I normally don’t ask many questions about rules and I just make them work.
These things are relevant because with Blades, I feel like a newbie GM and I love it! Blades is do different to me and at the risk of seeming fanboyish, I feel John’s hit gold along the lines of Numenera, Exalted and other milestone games that reinvigorated and changed the way games are played or just articulated and implement existing practices better.
Anyway, that was a bit of a tangent. Apologies! And as always, the Blades community is awesome! 🙂
Heh. Not everyone will be! Blades is kind of a losing battle, what with rising wanted levels, trauma, and death knocking at every door and window. Pain freaks will love this game, others less so. Success with consequences is common because that is inherent to a good story, and makes the binary failures and successes rarer. I also love it. Makes it easy to tell good stores to be guided by the game often that it’s time for interesting consequences which aren’t failure.
Tough challenges are when a roll was required. They are addressed when action is taken. The requirement for XP reward can be summarized as using certain fiction to take action in a way that demands dice rolling. This XP trigger rewards players who spent time during the session contributing with fitting fiction for their character type, while contributing to the game experience with engagement of the challenge mechanics.
I don’t generally consider every action that calls for a roll tough. If your cutter is intimidating a sniveling street rat in a dominant position, I wouldn’t call that tough or award XP. If he is intimidating a group of armed red sashes, then that is tough and he’ll be rewarded.
Mark Griffin sure, but I also wouldn’t call that dominant either, I would call it assured (or unimportant), and not worth a roll. I would just narrate, and move on.
Mark Cleveland Massengale In that case the roll isn’t about whether the street rat talks, of course he does. It’s about the quality of the info he has, and who else might also know it. Although if I’m feeling spicy maybe he’s actually a possessor ghost in the body of an urchin.
Good point Mark Griffin. I concede that there are situations where a roll might be made but things weren’t exactly Tough. I actually thought of a few holes in my definition as well. Like, say something is tough when the Whisper does one thing (intimidate a stalwart guard), but another tactic (say, using supernatural methods to gain access another way) is far less so. Was the latter tough? Some would say Yes (it Was a tough situation) others would say No (it was a tough situation, but not when dealt with in this way). To those who might say No, where is the line drawn?
So while “taking risk while engaging certain kinds of fiction” is probably a better summary of the intent, it is also far more subjective. I am open to a better definition of it since the distinction is unclear, and the connotation of “tough” will likely lead to substandard courses of action just to ensure they are ~difficult enough~ to earn XP.
I don’t really use a definition or a rule. At the end of the session I ask the players to tell me which challenges they thought were tough, and mark XP for those. Sometimes I will remind them of one they missed, and rarely I will point out that maybe a challenge wasn’t that tough. If we disagree it becomes a dialog about why something was easy or hard, and ultimately after the discussion I make it the players call. They’re usually pretty good about it.
Well sure. I have no problem doing it this way (it’s just an XP or two) but I can see why some people (the OP’s group included) would want a clearer definition. Especially if they disagree with someone’s interpretation.
You both make excellent points. I’ll need to run the game a few times, of course, but I’m thinking “tough” will classify any actions that could result in something, well, tough happening. If a player finds a clever way to circumvent a challenge that bypasses a danger, that’s fine. The danger was still there and I feel they shouldn’t be penalized for inspired thinking.