I’ve been thinking a lot about claims. IMO, as written the claims section is the only “weak point” of the rules. Why? Well, as written you must seize each claim as all are already owned by a faction. So, this means a crew can’t create a claim and evade negative faction status. They can’t join forces and share a claim. This doesn’t sit as well with me as I’d like. After all, if they can squat in an abandoned warehouse why can’t they have a brothel in there as well? Why would that risk war with another faction? At worse, a rival crew might be upset the PCs are invading the same market, but that’s not seizing a claim as the NPCs still have theirs.
I’ve gotten pretty good at the system but this aspect has been really bothering me as it forces extreme antagonism over other avenues.
Making a deal to share a claim, or creating a new one, would be perfectly feasible long term projects, I’d say.
You have the power to make alterations to fit your table!
Not a soul will bust down your door and stop you from changing the rules if you don’t like them, but —
I don’t agree, either.
1) It’s a core part of the game that you’re nobodies jostling for upward mobility, and elbowing other gangs out of the way to do it. No one is going to give you what’s theirs. Seizing a claim is the point. Can you, in the fiction, cooperatively hold it? Sure. But then that’s not turf you hold. It is, on the contrary, turf you can’t hold. (Although I think the rules as written allow it – see the line under Lose A Claim about negotiating). Now, you can change this, but in doing so you’ve made a nicer, gentler, more cooperative Duskvol. That’s OK – but that’s not the setting the game was written for. It’s not a mistake; it’s an explicit design decision.
2) You can’t put a brothel in the warehouse because, you know, you can. You have lots of little businesses on the side that don’t constitute claims. The Claim is an abstraction of a piece of turf you own, and a major boon/resource you get to control as a result of that. Opening a brothel in a claim you already hold doesn’t give you any more turf, power, respect, etc. It just gives you prostitutes bringing in a little change – which it’s already assumed your gang has little side-businesses going on, to account for the day-to-day stuff.
The claim system isn’t supposed to be an accurate simulation of running a territory in Duskvol. It’s an abstraction of how you’re seizing resources, respect, and power in the criminal underworld.
Also, if your scoundrels don’t want to make enemies… too bad!
Thinking about how to phrase point two more clearly:
There’s the question of “why can’t I put a brothel in my warehouse?”
There’s the question of “why can’t I put a second claim inside the first claim?”
If you go back to the book and clarify for yourself why those are two different questions, you’ll be set.
I think the game draws a fairly clear line between “mechanical effects” and “fictional events”
Yes, it’s fiction first, where you take fictional action which leads to mechanical effects.
But we also acknowledge that the abstract mechanics mean something.
The game mechanics are a way to highlight what aspects of the game we want the players to engage with.
In an abstract sense, “Claims” represent the crew taking power from other groups. How do they do that? That’s up to the fiction. What do they get from it? Well, that partly depends on the fiction, but it also depends on the claim.
You can have a brothel. You don’t need the abstracted “brothel” claim. Just describe how you get a brothel in the fiction. And then describe how it’s a side business, blah blah blah income and costs, which is why you don’t get the extra coin or other benefits that you’d get from having the claim. You started a brothel – you’re a business owner.
But the game is about a rising group of thugs fighting over territory. You captured the brothel claim. So you’re a gang that has taken power from another group and claimed it for their own. You may or may not be a business owner (maybe you took the claim by demanding that the brothels pay protection money to your gang, and you have nothing to do with running it.)
It’s the same as how you can roleplay your PC getting some really cool pants. And those pants might matter in the game (because it’s fiction-first) – but if you want the specific mechanical bonus you’ll need to add “fine pants” to your equipment list.
The problem with putting a brothel in your warehouse isn’t that you can’t do it – it’s that there’s only so many people in Doskvol. The people working in your brothel and frequenting it? They used to work in and frequent some other brothel. That brothel’s owners are none too happy about the fact that you stole their workforce clientele and horned in on their business.
As much as I read and play there are disparities that really trip me up. There are times the writing and/or rules a jarring to me. You guys helped untangle things a bit, so thanks! 🙂
Great answers, everyone. You nailed it.
I’ll also add that taking a claim doesn’t have to be violent or extremely antagonistic. When you look for that Drug Den claim, maybe one of your +3 status allies has one that they’re willing to give you because, you know, you’re friends?
Positive status matters, too. And “seizing” a claim can be a friendly or equitable arrangement.
John, what I find (found?) difficult to grasp was that the section concerning claims pushes toward the antagonistic (it literally reads that seizing a claims is a serious attack). The only mention of a remotely peaceful resolution of a claim dispute is when PCs defend claims.
While people can do what they want and fiction matters, things aren’t always as simple as they may seem, especially when the bulk of an entire rules section points a certain direction.
But, as I mentioned earlier, the conversation helped. 🙂
It’s just worth mentioning that everything is spoken for. You can’t just set up a brothel in an abandoned warehouse and expect the gang that controls vice in that area to take kindly to your operation. Part of the setting of Duskwall is the fact that everyone is confined to the safety of the city, and criminality runs rampant in that space. No matter where you go, if you try to set up a brothel, you will be stepping on someone’s toes who has claimed the ‘right’ to peddle that particular vice in that particular area. Same goes for any other ‘claim.’
Also, not every claim is necessarily a pre-existing facility or operation. They certainly can be if that’s how you want to play it, where an existing brothel undergoes a violent change of management. But you can totally set up a new operation as part of a claim, and have a completely and totally different ‘score’ in which you do the required legwork to do so.
The whole notion of ‘seizing a claim’ is basically the idea that you have established an understood control over that particular claim in that particular area, and whether that pisses a gang off because you stole it from them, or it pisses them off because you’ve muscled into their territory and are taking away from their business, is entirely up to you.
But at the end of the day, the conflict between gangs and factions is a big chunk of the driving force in the game that makes gears turn and things happen. The world reacts to what you do. And you can spend a lot of time managing relations – there’s no reason why you couldn’t take every claim in your playbook without starting a gang war – by doing scores meant to help a gang that you’ve offended, or longterm projects, or whatever. It’s up to you and the group.
But trying to find ways to subvert that dynamic of push and pull, that might lead to a dull game where the world doesn’t feel as reactive, like the players can get away with anything. I mean, you’re free to do that if you want, house rules and all that, but I wouldn’t recommend it!
So in our game after a series of rolled sixes for downtime faction clocks the Red Sashes destroyed the Lamp Blacks. This created various new opportunities for the crew and other gangs present in Crow’s Foot. Most relevant to this thread would be the claims and turf left up for grabs without threat of faction standing loss in the short term. Acting quickly the crew secured the allegiance of the new management of a pleasure house and acquired the envoy claim.
So you can see if the fiction is right, why not? Judgement calls are what separate your game from all the others being played in this system.
This was never an argument over fiction or table rules. It was a mention concerning how the text heavily leans toward hostile seizure. The reason it was jarring for me is that the fiction could easily go against those rules and I found it odd John didn’t explore other options in the text, especially since the game is laser-focused and extremely enjoyable to play with no adjustments. You can certainly change rules, but I prefer to use them as intended, if possible. If that isn’t working I go to places like this (which is honestly the most helpful RPG community I’ve been to).
Blades has a (to me, at least) unique relationship between fiction and mechanics that isn’t always as clear as it would be in other games. I see this as a feature, to be sure. In this case, however, it really tripped me up but as usual, the community handed some stellar advice and gave me some more tools.
That’s true to an extent, Ben, but don’t downplay the parts of the game that tell you to take ownership over the rules and use them as you see fit. Those sections are part of the rules, too.
Oops! My last post was in response to Travis. I forgot to link that. What’s also missing is my bit about agreeing and appreciating his and everyone else’s responses.
John Harper, it’s not always apparent to me that Blades is as fluid as it really is. Most games I’ve played aren’t as forgiving with mechanical ownership so there are moments that give me pause. To be honest, your writing and clarity have spoiled me in easily grasping PbtA. 🙂
It’s true that, at least to me, a lot of the game mechanics for BitD weren’t obvious.
What helped me a lot was to think of it less as a game, and more as a toolkit to help the GM drive the story forward.
Indulge my rambling, and let me explain how you could use this “toolkit” mindset to use the claim status as-is, including losing faction status, for a “we set up the brothel without competing with any other group” event.
I rarely use the dice to tell me if the PCs succeeded or failed – I use them to tell me when to describe new elements of the story, new twists or problems, new downfalls or discoveries.
In a traditional game, I’d just narrate those twists or complications. I’d narrate that the elves ambush the PCs. That generally feels pretty arbitrary.
In BitD, I’d wait for an appropriate roll with complications, or offer a devils bargain, or use one of the other tools before narrating the spirit warden ambush – so instead of feeling arbitrary, it feels like a response to the PCs actions.
For me, that was the “lightbulb moment” with running BitD.
And, since I’ve got a particular bad roll in mind, that also helps me narrate the fiction. They failed a roll while negotiating with the spirit wardens, because Bob was being rude? Well, that’s why the offended spirit warden is out here laying an ambush. And, the root cause is that they offended him so that also implies new courses of action – if they escape the ambush without killing any wardens, and send an apology letter, will that end hostility? What if they find blackmail dirt on the offended warden and tell him to back off? So… the dice help me chain seemingly insignificant events together into a story that grows and grows.
But which rolls tie together? Well, all of them. It often doesn’t really matter. Why is he offended? Due to the RP the players did? Due to a failed roll? Due to the player accepting a devils bargain? Doesn’t matter, they all work!
That means it could also be due to the players “seizing a claim” – they set up a brothel in a warehouse, seemingly not offending anyone. But the GM marks a faction change with the spirit wardens.
This spirit warden, offended by the increase in vice in this neighbourhood (which he happens to care about because his prostitute mistress lives in the next building, and he both doesn’t like the reduction in her work and the increase in problems that the new customers bring.) So this hypocritical spirit warden, wrapped in the pretence of stamping out vice, decides to bring down this group that is setting up new brothels here.
So he sets an ambush – the PCs (probably?) fight back, the Spirit Wardens have dead members due to the PCs, and we’ve explained this faction status loss, while also added to the story. They’ve got a petty nemesis, they have something to discover if they investigate (both about this new nemesis and why the wardens ambushed them, but they can also find out about the mistress – possible blackmail material. Possible peace-making opportunity. Possible escalation, they could hire her into the brothel and steal her from the warden. Who knows where the story will go?
So, by using the system as intended, even when it looked like a faction status loss didn’t make sense, it forces (and inspires) us to improvise new story elements, and gives a structure for how those story elements fit together, and where the story might go next, and what fictional opportunities are open to the player.
Some of this example maybe doesn’t seem to fit together. For example, this warden is offended and sets up an ambush, so they lose status with the Spirit Wardens? Maybe that makes sense (one warden upset enough might be able to taint their reputation) or maybe it doesn’t. What if they’re on great terms with the Spirit Wardens, but just don’t like this one guy? We don’t really want to taint that whole relationship. But let’s just roll with it, assume they lose the status, the ambush happens and the PCs – caring about their relationship with the Spirit Wardens – drop smoke bombs and escape, then sneak into the house of a friendly spirit warden, talk to them about the problem, and handle the problem carefully. Why should they still have a lower status? They shouldn’t! That careful handling can totally count as them improving their status. So fictionally they “never lost status” and dealt with one rogue warden. But mechanically, they lost status when the rogue warden targeted them, then regained it when they dealt with that problem.
I wouldn’t worry about “making bad stuff happen” that the PCs had no control over. It seems unfair to drop their status with the Spirit Wardens just because they made an unrelated brothel, but as long as it leads to RP that the PCs can see rather than just “they don’t like you and you don’t know why” it’ll be fun. The game system is GREAT at creating opportunities for this “bad stuff”, and as long as you fictionally tie the “bad stuff” to the event that triggered it, the game will still run smoothly and it’ll “make sense” to the players. Remember – in a traditional game, that “bad stuff” that the PCs didn’t cause would be happening anyway, it’d just come from the GM deciding that they need to drive the story forward. And remember that we’re not being “fair” like in a game, we’re using the toolkit to drive the story forward, and “unfair” things happening to the protagonist are what creates drama and gives them something to respond to, and gives opportunities for them to take action in response.
There are so many “triggers” for these elements, many outside of the PCs control. If you’re using them, then you’re already improving events like this as the game moves along.
So faction status loss from seizing a claim becomes “just another” improvised event, in the same way that rolling “demonic attention” after a score is something the GM would need to improvise.
If you don’t have ideas for why they have a faction status loss, or don’t want to decide “it’s the spirit wardens” or whatever other group – use the random chart and roll for which faction loses status, and roll for inspiration about why.
+Tony Demetrio, yes and thank you. 😀 What’s awesome is Blades is the perfect game for my group’s love of narrative play by our mutual trust.
Did a thing where I let my players just crush another smaller gang – basically what they were at the start – and take over the claim they had. Since they weren’t affiliated with anyone and were (basically) what the players were just a tier ago, nobody really cared (plus they rolled CRAZY good on the engagement). It’s a good way to start it off, I think, but it wouldn’t work forever.