Blades in the Dark - What am I missing?

[Tecmes]

So I read the BitD SRD. I don't get it. Can you help me?

Character sheet feels like nerdgasm, an exciting playbook of cool things you can do or suffer.

But AFAICT once you get into "OK, now how are those bits used in game", there's no game rules, only game rules ideas.

The rules don't tell what's the difficulty or the consequences are for the available actions. They tell the participants (mostly the GM) that they have to decide on all that. Well, thanks. All I have to do, then, is... write the rules of the game?

 

Telling me that I gotta check my action scores (and underlining that any score could be used for any action!), decide on a difficulty and impact, roll for it, and assess the consequences, is not rules. It's rules framework.

It's like telling me "In Football some actions are illegal or dangerous. The referee will penalize your team if you do these! He may decide you lose a play, or move back some distance, or evict a player, depending on the severity. What actions lead to what consequence? Well, the referee will decide which are and what's appropriate. Now game on!"

Yarg, help me! Going crazy!

Edited November 16, 2023 by Tecmes (see edit history)

[Actana]

You need to approach BitD as a new game, not an extension of other games you know. It's not uncommon to need to unlearn how games are "supposed" to work before you truly get the system. In fact, it's a bit notorious about being hard to understand. However, we can examine a few principles at play here.

 

Difficulties in the game are set already. You roll the d6s in your Action Roll, and you check the results. 1-3, 4-5 or 6. The highest result in the roll determines how well you do. The game also lists consequences for the rolls, depending on your Position.

Position and Effect are how the game handles difficulty, not by DCs or what have you's. The GM (or if the rules if they say something different) determine what the Position and Effect are, which is in its procedure not entirely dissimilar from setting a DC or something. The important difference is that Position does not determine how difficult it is to succeed, but frames how risky the action is and how severe the consequences are if you fail (even if you don't know the consequences yet), and Effect is how well you will do if you succeed, not how easy it is to succeed.

Here's a relatively common misconception and a framing that can help with it: rolls in BitD are not just "do you succeed?". They also include elements of "what happens next?" and "who gets to have the most say in what happens next?".

 

The actions that lead to consequences are the actions that roll 1-3 or 4-5, and the severity of those consequences are based on the Position of the roll. The GM cannot ascribe harsher consequences than the Position, and the players are also aware of the Position and can negotiate it based on what their characters are doing (for example trading Position for Effect or vice versa). NPCs present also have their own Effects, which can be used to influence the consequences of a player's 1-3 or 4-5 rolls.

 

It's fine if that's not what you want from games, but saying that it doesn't have rules is very misleading. Nor do you have to write any rules, so I'm not really quite sure I understand what you mean by that. BitD will not tell you exactly what happens when you fail, because that depends entirely on the situation at hand, and instead gives the GM certain rules to follow but allows them freedom to adjust those consequence rules in a manner that makes the most sense for that situation. But importantly, something interesting always happens after a roll.

Edited November 17, 2023 by Actana (see edit history)

[Tecmes]

Thanks, that's a clear summary of what's unique about the way checks are framed there. But I *did* understand that unlike other games, BitD doesn't use "vs. DC" or "opposed rolls", and doesn't make NPCs or GM roll. Also it has an intriguing concept of risk and effect which is rarely found. But it's still difficulty, by any other name.

And I wasn't commenting on that.

My point is that, between the Engagment roll and the start of Downtime, AFAICT there's a large gaping void (unless the book has stuff the SRD doesn't, or maybe GM advice I'm missing).

 

A - Once you've dealt with the engagment situation, what happens? Most games have structured gameplay there: day-by-day travel, room-by-room exploration, round-by-round combat. Because BitD treats combat as non-combat, it guts out the one part that typically has structure, and ends up with none during the Score. If the game's a donut, that's the donut hole. Notice how the rules skip from the engagment rules to downtime. There is no "running the score" section, only that one-liner to summarize what 50% of your game time will be:

Quote

Once the initial actions have been resolved, you follow the normal process for establishing position for the rest of the rolls during the score.

What "Rest of the rolls" ?

 

B - How is it determined that a Score is a success?

If there's no mandated number of checks to accomplish the score, and because every action *creates harm* rather than avoids it, it is in my interest to NOT ACT:

GM: "Engagment roll! OK, bad. You stumble upon the gang bringing in smuggled goods. They open fire and you are under a hail of bullets and lightning! What do you do?"

Players: "No sweat. We wait it out."

GM: "What? But the bullets?"

Players: "As long as we don't roll, there's no harm. We just leave."

You can't just say "The GM makes up obstacles and perils". Why would I tackle them? It seems after the score I'll look back and think "Hmm, next time I'll stay home. Every time I act, I inccur permanent Trauma!". Unlike other games, pain is all my fault.

 

I'm in it for the XP

The only rationale I see is the BW-like XP marks. Is it then that I have to milk the Score to try and attempt one Desperate action per attribute, then achieve each Playbook advancement Mark twice? Then leave.

And... I don't need to *succeed*! Just attempt. So position/effect is only relevant to ensure I *try* desperate actions. All I have to do is go about *convincing* the GM that I'm doing something foolish, and then stuff that fits within my playbook advancement, and voilà. In that case, indeed, it doesn't matter if the rules to set position/effect are so vague and full of "maybes".

But I wouldn't play that game.

 

What? the McGuffin? I *knew* we were forgetting something!

Of course, for my Faction to advance, I have to score the Score. Errr.. how do I go about achieving that? I don't see how this can be handled without either:

a) Establishing a fixed number of actions I have to succeed at. Easy enough! So why isn't that rule there?

OR

b) Describing reasonable obstacles I have to overcome. A sentry. A trap. A door. But that's very swingy. If the GM carelessly asks for check after check ("Roll Survey to see if you spot the guard!"), especially with no consideration with what development facets they are engaging, I'm going to pile on consequences, stress, Trauma, for no clear reason, and with a rate that's highly dependent on the GM's style of management. If that's what they mean by all those comment about setting your play style, that's meta-Golden Shovel if there ever was any.

 

At last someone made Ars Magica work

There's another possibility: the Scores don't matter. It's a game that's about your faction, your hidehout, downtime, development - not the grind of the dungeon rooms. That would explain the black hole that Scores are.

But then don't run scores. Make a single engagment roll that determines the result of the whole score. Then run a certain number of flashbacks for each character, allowing him to mark XP. "OK, so during that Score I.... vaulted over two buildings while lobbing eldrtich grenades. Let me roll Finesse."

I *would* play that game. I would make an Ars Magica hack, and a Shadowrun hack. Heck, I would make a Year Zero and an Apocalypse World hack.

[Actana]

Honestly, I'm not sure I have the answers you seek, nor the energy to write it all out. I'd recommend watching some APs of the game. I think the creator has some very good ones that have helped people get the game better. Also, the SRD does not have everything the book has, including the Running the Game section.

[Tecmes]

Well that answer much of it, if there's a section that's not there!

In fact I think I'll be trying a Roll20 game in "test mode". Just to be totally contradictory.

Edited November 17, 2023 by Tecmes (see edit history)

[Yamazaki]

Yes, a lot is skipped on the SRD. It's there as a reference doc, not a replacement for the book.

 

On 11/17/2023 at 10:26 AM, Tecmes said:

A - Once you've dealt with the engagment situation, what happens? Most games have structured gameplay there: day-by-day travel, room-by-room exploration, round-by-round combat. Because BitD treats combat as non-combat, it guts out the one part that typically has structure, and ends up with none during the Score. If the game's a donut, that's the donut hole. Notice how the rules skip from the engagment rules to downtime. There is no "running the score" section, only that one-liner to summarize what 50% of your game time will be:

What "Rest of the rolls" ?

 

First of all, the best way to explain this is as "Free play, with a goal". The Engagement Roll dictates the starting situation, nothing more. There isn't a lot of structure because the narrative should dictate what should happen next, or the players will decide to move towards their goal.

For example, let's say the PCs are trying to rob a specific McGuffin from a train, maybe by getting onto it as passangers. Engagement Roll is a 4, so maybe they get on without a fight, but don't have nearly as much time as they'd like. So we start a Clock with 6 segments, labeling it "Train leaves the City", which we'll mark as the action progresses. And now we ask the players how they want to proceed.

Quote

B - How is it determined that a Score is a success?

If there's no mandated number of checks to accomplish the score, and because every action *creates harm* rather than avoids it, it is in my interest to NOT ACT:

GM: "Engagment roll! OK, bad. You stumble upon the gang bringing in smuggled goods. They open fire and you are under a hail of bullets and lightning! What do you do?"

Players: "No sweat. We wait it out."

GM: "What? But the bullets?"

Players: "As long as we don't roll, there's no harm. We just leave."

You can't just say "The GM makes up obstacles and perils". Why would I tackle them? It seems after the score I'll look back and think "Hmm, next time I'll stay home. Every time I act, I inccur permanent Trauma!". Unlike other games, pain is all my fault.

 

So I see two problems here with this mindset.

1) if the PCs aren't willing to get into trouble to get rich, then they're not playing the game. Why bother with the game if they're unwilling to risk it? This is a player buy-in issue. There's a reason that the author's top advice for players is "Drive your characters like they're a stolen car" (or something like that).

2) If the PCs don't act, and just try to wait it out, this is where the GM can use a HARD MOVE. See, the GM still has moves in this game, much like PBTA games. Sometimes this is a Fortune Roll, sometimes it's marking a Clock, or just plain declaring that the bad guys are moving to a new position to get a better shot in.

 

When in doubt, check the Best Practices for PCs and GM. These are on the playbooks, too, for easy reference.

 

Quote

I'm in it for the XP

The only rationale I see is the BW-like XP marks. Is it then that I have to milk the Score to try and attempt one Desperate action per attribute, then achieve each Playbook advancement Mark twice? Then leave.

And... I don't need to *succeed*! Just attempt. So position/effect is only relevant to ensure I *try* desperate actions. All I have to do is go about *convincing* the GM that I'm doing something foolish, and then stuff that fits within my playbook advancement, and voilà. In that case, indeed, it doesn't matter if the rules to set position/effect are so vague and full of "maybes".

But I wouldn't play that game.

This is basically a player buy-in issue. See, BitD is a narrative-first game. It's more about the story than it is about character advancement. This isn't like D&D where you get levels to get new powers to make you better at killing monsters on graph paper. It's about getting into trouble, trying to get around that trouble or resolve it, or whatever, and then doing it all over again because you managed to piss off someone else.

Think all the crime drama TV series, and consider yourself and the players as part of the writer's room to one of those.

XP is just there to show that you're doing the right thing by getting into trouble and playing up the tropes of your playbook.

 

Quote

What? the McGuffin? I *knew* we were forgetting something!

Of course, for my Faction to advance, I have to score the Score. Errr.. how do I go about achieving that? I don't see how this can be handled without either:

a) Establishing a fixed number of actions I have to succeed at. Easy enough! So why isn't that rule there?

OR

b) Describing reasonable obstacles I have to overcome. A sentry. A trap. A door. But that's very swingy. If the GM carelessly asks for check after check ("Roll Survey to see if you spot the guard!"), especially with no consideration with what development facets they are engaging, I'm going to pile on consequences, stress, Trauma, for no clear reason, and with a rate that's highly dependent on the GM's style of management. If that's what they mean by all those comment about setting your play style, that's meta-Golden Shovel if there ever was any.

It's less about the number of obstacles, and more about the narrative of the Score. Some Scores are going to be simple, either by luck or clever play. Some will be horrendous and bring out a crapton of heat because they killed a cop in the process, or made a devils' bargain that adds a new faction to the list of people who want the PCs dead.

It's not like a Dungeon Crawl where you have so many rooms to explore before you find the treasure or the boss or whatever. The nature of the score is more about what feels natural about the story progression of the events. So if we call back that train heist from earlier - maybe the PCs find the MacGuffin, but need to get off the train now before they draw too much attention. How do they do that? What sort of preparations would they make for that (invoking flashbacks as necessary to show this prep)? And who saw them sneak on and/or through the train and realized who they were? Who are they stealing from?

Additionally, it's best not to call for action rolls unless it's 1) Uncertain and 2) Interesting. Rolling just to spot guards is boring, for example. But rolling to knock them out? That's a good one, and that can be a single roll too.

 

Quote

At last someone made Ars Magica work

There's another possibility: the Scores don't matter. It's a game that's about your faction, your hidehout, downtime, development - not the grind of the dungeon rooms. That would explain the black hole that Scores are.

But then don't run scores. Make a single engagment roll that determines the result of the whole score. Then run a certain number of flashbacks for each character, allowing him to mark XP. "OK, so during that Score I.... vaulted over two buildings while lobbing eldrtich grenades. Let me roll Finesse."

I *would* play that game. I would make an Ars Magica hack, and a Shadowrun hack. Heck, I would make a Year Zero and an Apocalypse World hack.

Scores very much matter. It's how the gang gets Coin, which is required to retire. It's also required to expand your operations, fund further scores, and get improvements of various kinds. It's also the currency at which you can buy more downtime actions.

Additionally, Scores are where all the risk and fun are generated. It's the Heist for which the best stories start. While downtime is mostly micromanagement, and free play is how you find more scores, scores are the meat and potatoes of the gameplay loop. A score should be an interesting aspect of the storytelling.

[Actana]

Thanks, Yama. You managed to put thoughts together where I couldn't. I basically agree with all of that.

[Butchern]

I have played a lot of PbtA games, but never Blades in the Dark, and I have to say, you guys are doing a great job of selling the game (no sarcasm!). Now I want to play. :D

[Eric]

It's on my List, too 😀

[Basil_Bottletop]

Actana suggested watching YT or Actual Plays and I believe one of the first (at least in my experience) big Actual Plays that was on a podcast was a BitD game. Heck if I can remember what it was, but I do recall one of the players was British and maybe one of the characters was named Tako (pronounced Taco). But I could be merging a bunch of old memories together.

That was a time in my life where I was trying a bunch of different Podcast Actual Plays and getting like 3 episodes in before moving to the next one if I didn't like it or couldn't get reliable copies of the next episodes.

[Tecmes]

8 hours ago, Butchern said:

I have to say, you guys are doing a great job of selling the game (no sarcasm!). Now I want to play. :D

Hold your horses, and try it out first with close friends. What I read above only reinforces my quip: it's the idea of a game, not a game.

What the book says is: here's a great idea for a setting and gameplay involving heists. Now do it. We're not giving you rules, only instructions on what you must achieve. Oh yes, and vague strictures, such as "be a fan of the PCs" or "address the players" and "address the characters". Do it, and do it right!

It's worse than no rules. It's no rules, plus pressure put on the GM to somehow run it correctly. To achieve the tone and spirit that the authors achieve in their own games.

If the authors really think that heists in a gothic living city full of threats is amazing (and it is), then produce rules that make it happen. Don't tell the participants: "now, make our vision happen".

These games are indeed AP-material, because the book doesn't tell you how to make it work. You've got to attempt to learn how to make it work by watching someone do it and somehow understand the trick? (or rather, that there is no trick, just good'ol "GM runs the show")

I understand that the authors have run amazing such games. And that it's *fiendishly* hard to develop rules that somehow make those amazing session materialize for anyone out of the box. But I don't understand the hype about a game that's only delivering by dint of the GM's sweat and tears.

[Yamazaki]

37 minutes ago, Tecmes said:

Hold your horses, and try it out first with close friends. What I read above only reinforces my quip: it's the idea of a game, not a game.

What the book says is: here's a great idea for a setting and gameplay involving heists. Now do it. We're not giving you rules, only instructions on what you must achieve. Oh yes, and vague strictures, such as "be a fan of the PCs" or "address the players" and "address the characters". Do it, and do it right!

It's worse than no rules. It's no rules, plus pressure put on the GM to somehow run it correctly. To achieve the tone and spirit that the authors achieve in their own games.

If the authors really think that heists in a gothic living city full of threats is amazing (and it is), then produce rules that make it happen. Don't tell the participants: "now, make our vision happen".

These games are indeed AP-material, because the book doesn't tell you how to make it work. You've got to attempt to learn how to make it work by watching someone do it and somehow understand the trick? (or rather, that there is no trick, just good'ol "GM runs the show")

I understand that the authors have run amazing such games. And that it's *fiendishly* hard to develop rules that somehow make those amazing session materialize for anyone out of the box. But I don't understand the hype about a game that's only delivering by dint of the GM's sweat and tears.

As someone who has ran a few sessions of BitD, but isn't an expert, I do not understand where you're struggling to grok this, so please bear with me. It sounds like you need specific rules laid out that aren't in the system, because most folks don't need those rules. Scores don't have procedures because it's based on the narrative of the events of the score. This is a system that relies on collaborative storytelling with the whole group - everyone needs to pitch in. Hell, in the best scenarios, players are providing the Scores themselves instead of the GM generating them, because it's a natural progression of the narrative.

Obviously, there's rules to resolve Actions, and rules to resolve downtime and all that. It's designed to be fairly basic and flexible.

I wonder if you have any experience with other Fiction-First systems, like those of the Powered by the Apocalypse variety. BitD operates in the exact same fashion.

Honestly, if the phrase "prepare situations, not plots" goes against everything you believe, then FitD/PbtAs are a bad fit for you. And that's okay! No, seriously - you gotta have a very improv-centric mindset (but it's not purely improv) to make these kinds of games flourish.

 

FYI, if you're reluctant to buy the book, but still want to look at an FitD game that has more complete presentation than what the BitD SRD has, check out Wicked Ones - there's a free PDF. Similar baseline, but different concept and setting.

Edited November 21, 2023 by Yamazaki (see edit history)

[Actana]

I'm gonna have to say, I don't really get the idea that it doesn't have rules. It's clearly a game, with rules, and procedures with the rules. Sure, it's got a bit of a reputation in being harder to understand on average, but show me a tabletop game that doesn't have a poorly laid out rulebook. But not having rules? That feels like a misnomer.

[Butchern]

1 hour ago, Tecmes said:

Hold your horses, and try it out first with close friends. What I read above only reinforces my quip: it's the idea of a game, not a game.

Yeah, I skimmed through the rules at lunch today, and I have to say I disagree with everything you've said here. It is hard for me to imagine that you are even talking about the same game I was reading today. I do see what other are saying about it not working like one of the D&D clones with "I do a thing so I roll to see if I succeed" mechanics, but that doesn't make it hard to understand or to imagine how it would play, not for me at least.

It is probably best for everyone here to just move along from this thread and play the games they like (and it looks like I like BitD!). That's what I'm going to do. 😁

[Gallowglass]

I think the confusion comes from the difference between rules and scenarios.

A dnd module will specify what level characters it is designed for, what level the opposition is, what powers they have, how many of them there are, what puzzles / obstacles there are etc.

All the things you say are missing from the rules are all scenario details.
Does Blades in the Dark have pre-made scenario modules to run? Sorry it’s not that sort of game.

If you’re the kind of gm who finds it easy to write their own scenarios, then maybe Blades is worth investigating. If you prefer to run pre-made scenarios then Blades might not be the best fit for what you want.