going to run a blades in the dark campaign. I don't see it talked about much on here. what am I in for? also can I make it work with only 2 players?
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
Blades in the dark
going to run a blades in the dark campaign. I don't see it talked about much on here. what am I in for? also can I make it work with only 2 players?
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
|
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
>I don't see it
well, it's in the dark so
You should always be on your game for the push-pull between effect and risk. It's like equivalent exchange. The usual flow for action resolution is
1. GM sets Position
2. GM sets Effect
3. Player relays potential modifiers (abilities, gear, situational factors) that shift Position and/or Effect
4. Offer Devil's Bargain if you want
5. Initial Resolution
6. Player Resists or not
7. Final Resolution
It's frontloading your calculations before you even roll. As a consequence, it's a game that needs players who can think and a GM who'll give them the time to think. I can tell you being rushed is a fricking pain in the ass. Played a game with a sperg who tried to barrel through actions at a fast pace and chastised everyone else for "rollplaying" and it was a miserable experience. It's the way the system's designed. Call it a flaw if you want, but this is not the game where you just throw dice mindlessly. If you do as a player, you'll frick yourself over. If you force it as a GM, intelligent players will feel like you're fricking THEM over. If you're fine with that slow pace it's a fairly intuitive system.
I'm playing with new players so that sounds perfect to me. they don't have enough exposure to the hobby to just roll for anything they feel like, and they'll probably be needing some guidance on how to do things anyways. I appreciate the tips friendo
No problem bro. If it's a new player try to help them out when it comes to counting up all their gear and situational benefits. Unlike other games that give hard numbers to bonuses, in this game players are expected to petition the GM by factoring in all the elements in their favor for a given roll. That kind of "Mother, may I" thing can be tough even for experienced players.
I will definitely keep that in mind. I hope it'll come more naturally given they don't have bad habits to unlearn
Best of luck.
Yeah, that works. It also starts players on a mindset to advocate for themselves along with brainstorming tactics and solutions.
my last campaign (with different players) I was using FUDGE and went about things in a similar way, with players looking for bonuses themselves and me setting the difficulty and arbitrating what bonuses they could actually take. I think that should translate well.
I haven't played it, just read the rules a bunch. That's.. unusual, I guess. I would have figured the whole point was to be FASTER because you are just holding a conversation punctuated by rolls, as the book says on page 6. But it's slow?
I disagree with that anon, although I’ve only played a handful of sessions so far. It’s much faster paced than D&D (especially with inexperienced players), because as
points out there’s not much maths, and the style of the fiction pushes you towards just doing things and getting to a roll without worrying too much about details.
>the style of the fiction pushes you towards just doing things and getting to a roll without worrying too much about details
That's not true at all. At all.
I say it can be slow because a smart player does NOT want to miss any beneficial factor. Is your weapon Fine? What other relevant gear do you have? Did you realistically get the drop on the enemy? Where is everybody situated when your attack happens? Is there anything else that could contribute to enhancing your attack? Do you want to group up with anyone else for it? Do you want to hear a Devil's Bargain? Do you want to TAKE a Devil's Bargain? If you do this, are your chances to Resist any good? And what approach will you try to roll with? The bad experience I mentioned had the other player insist we just "eyeball" our bonuses. But a single step on Effect/Position is vital. You don't want to miss anything. Compare that to everybody knowing you're certain to specifically get Advantage and roll twice under this specific scenario, or specifically a static +2 bonus when you fulfill this specific condition. It's not easier. It's harder.
Ah this reminds me of FATE. I remember an experienced FATE GM talking about how whenever something went down, like encountering a big enemy, play would stop for half an hour while the players negotiated the best way to use all their free invokes and maybe some fate points to deal the most stress to the foe.
Yes, it's like that. I don't mean to say anyone who doesn't is playing "wrong" but the way the system sets itself up is absolutely mired in narrative details to tinker with the Effect/Position slide. You can just say "okay" if the GM says your attack starts Desperate/Limited and go on your way with rolling. Or you can argue your weapon is Fine, the creature was described as vulnerable to piercing and you're using a spear, your buddy did a setup action, it's undead and you have a protective charm on you, and it doesn't have weapons so could the long reach be a factor? The GM might accept some of those, might not but a best case scenario is you've put forth an argument to be Controlled/Great IIRC. That takes time.
I haven't played Fate, but frick. This seems awful.
Yeah, people will do what the system encourages, and you can't blame them for it.
Seems crazy to me that fategays will say that you don't need all those mechanics that "simulationist" games have, but then they're happy just negotiating what the fricking reality of the situation is every time, which is almost like making up new mechanics on the spot.
That anon was talking about BitD, not FATE. Though having played similar rules-light, low-crunch games (FUDGE in my case) things can be as slow or fast as the players want it to be. I let my players determine the level of realism they wanted to pursue when taking their actions and used that as the standard for how I treated roll modifiers.
I tried a session with only 2 players and I found that the stress economy kind of breaks down pretty quickly. It's the only game Ive run where more players actually makes it easier.
If I were you I'd either have each person run two characters or maybe allow them to advance their characters and gang a few
hopefully I can get a third player to help mitigate that but if not the two players each thing might be the way to go.
Easy. Give them a blade each, switch off the lights and wait for the SCREAM THUD.
The concept of checking details and making preparations does suit Blades in the Dark, because it is supposed to be a game about heists and similarly intricate crimes. The fact it has Flashbacks to retroactively add details about a scene only adds to that idea.
The most negative thing I can say about it is that if you do have a lot of smart players who are only focused on efficiency, it can feel a lot like sitting in the writing room of an Ocean's Eleven movie. Which is to say, it's a group of people sitting around narrating how well the heist goes in a less linear fashion, with all the excitement and uncertainty of writing a movie script.
Careful anon, there are people on this board right now who think intricately planning the heist is the most important part of the heist and flashbacks are the great satan.
Well, if they get that upset about it, they're either going to find this thread and complain or avoid it, so it doesn't matter.
I don't have a problem with flashbacks as a concept personally. I just find the end result of Blades in the Dark to not be very engaging or fun. I would compare it to reading through a book, but every time the tension is starting to build towards some action or a twist, the pages are just littered with post-it notes from the writer and editors with a detailed explanation of how to execute X/Y/Z, then you turn the page to discover that the character did X/Y/Z with zero issues.
For me personally, that just slowly siphons away all tension and excitement I would have towards what should otherwise be a daring crime.
These sorts of collaborative story-building mechanics can work, but I don't think Blades in the Dark is the right mix of it. There are enough limitations on the players where the game isn't like Microscope, where it's all very freeform post-hoc construction of a timeline of events, but the inverse is also wrong, where you have enough narrative control that you're constantly being pulled away from the perspective of your thief.
If that sort of balance works for someone else, it's fine. I just personally find it a very awkward middle ground.
The Flashback mechanic is great, but it's overblown to say it eliminates the need for intricate planning. At most it delays it. That can help smooth over the pacing, but when you flashback something intricate all you did was pass the buck down. In addition to that, Flashbacks cost Stress so you'll want to plan ahead to minimize that cost too. A lot of these concepts pan out differently through actual play than people might think from glancing the rulebook.
The setting is a mess and should give the active criminal elements in each area, the mechanics are stolen from Dream Pod 9 Silhouette system and the organization types are a little too constraining.
I still like it. It's not the kindof game crippled too much by a low player count, unlike, say, playing a 4th edition D&D module. They'll just aim lower, challenge-wise.
>what am I in for
Depends entirely on your group, but on average: nothing good. This system takes every problem FATE had and doubes down on it, so you either have this mind-hive group with shared idea of what they want on telepatical level, or you're fricked. And God have mercy on your soul if you get a singe munchkin.