Blades in the Dark - What am I missing?

[Tecmes]

@Actana I know this game has many rules (e.g. for downtime, factions, etc. and also action-resolution rules), I'm pointing out that when managing scores, the place the rules have is very different from managing e.g. downtime. It's mostly about the GM (and possibly players, yes) figuring out what should happen and how that should be resolved, rather than applying rules.

 

@Butchern, yes totally, I'm making strong points because on MW it elicits very interesting answers by people with different, articulated, opinions. Here I'm trying to understand WHY this is not a game for me, or possibly why I'm wrong in thinking it's not!

 

@Gallowglass Indeed, I'm aware this is not a scenario-based game, and mind you I hate the whole scenario concept which I think has done damage to the hobby. BitD is "play to see what happens". But beyond the idea that the GM can come with nothing prepared (something I'm totally fine with), I cannot wrap my head around this tagline. Which has to do with the narrative playstyle, discussed below...

19 hours ago, Yamazaki said:

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.

Ah yes, I do understand that! And that's the issue I have. I love collaborative storytelling... in fact that's why I'm here on MW, because it's hard finding such games on tabletop or Roll20. However, I can't wrap my head around hybrid games where you've got a GM that's in charge of some decisions, and rules, BUT there's claims about narrative first.

You can't narrative first if the GM decides on difficulty and effect, if he can decide whether an action is a good or bad idea, and/or if the rules decides. In the first case, that's not narration, that negotiation with the GM; in the latter case, that's useless fluff over rolls.

In other words, I see two possibilities if narration is your goal:

1) Freeform. There's no GM, no rules beyond "pass the mike and don't mess with my character". You don't need a rulebook for that. You need NOT a rulebook for that. I like freeform; I don't like freeform in rules clothing (see below).

2) Story-minded rules. That's the *fiendishly* difficult part I was referring to previously. Write intricate, encompassing rules, that enforce and instill the atmosphere and dynamics you're promising (say, "desperate heists in a gloomy city where despair has you commit acts you will forget through excess"). Again: just by running the rules, you'll get that. That would be truly "play to see what happens"!

My take on games like PitB (and AW) is that they claim goals that are impossible. They suggest unique, intriguing atmosphere and game play involving choices and relationships, without a script. Cool. You could stop right there and freeform that. Instead, they also claim rules matter and tell you "everything is a move from your playbook". At which point I'm drooling with excitment.

Then it all breaks down because you realize that the rules void in some part means gameplay is all about negotiating with the GM about your choice of actions and their difficulty. Why? Because it's almost impossible to write rules for the core parts of the game as in 2), and instead of giving up, the authors shovel it over to the GM's fiat (or GM-player negotiation, which is no better). That's the Scores situation. And that's why the game is full of advice and instructions to the GM as to what he must accomplish (that the rules should but don't). It's "play to decide what happens".

Hence, I feel "Collaborative storytelling" really means "putting forward cool, relevant, atmosphere-appropriate, gamestyle-appropriate actions for your character and hoping the GM (and possibly the players) run with it and reward it (with success; or failure if failure is what you seek)." That's not collaborative, it's argumentative. If it is to be collaborative, then every idea must work. You can't expect a random group of players to be on the same page; so collaboration really means yes-ing all ideas. If it does, then it's not a game, it's a freeform in rules clothing.

[Yamazaki]

23 minutes ago, Tecmes said:

Hence, I feel "Collaborative storytelling" really means "putting forward cool, relevant, atmosphere-appropriate, gamestyle-appropriate actions for your character and hoping the GM (and possibly the players) run with it and reward it (with success; or failure if failure is what you seek)." That's not collaborative, it's argumentative. If it is to be collaborative, then every idea must work. You can't expect a random group of players to be on the same page; so collaboration really means yes-ing all ideas. If it does, then it's not a game, it's a freeform in rules clothing.

AHA! This is where the hang-up is! I see the problem here, and it's entirely a mindset one.

See, the problem you're seeing is one that only exists if there's any form of GM vs Player mentality at all. These fiction-first games require legit cooperation and collaboration. It requires trust between players and GM that everyone wants to create the best story possible together. Gameplay is a conversation, a term that is insanely important to the PbtA/FitD domain - conversation. And the moment you consider it a negotiation or argument, the whole thing will break down.

Yet despite that, PbtA and FitD work just fine, and the reason is in trust. When the players aren't concerned with winning, and the GM isn't looking to challenge the players, and instead focus on the story and what makes it interesting and fun, these games flourish. You do require folks to be on the same page, but that's what player buy-in and Session Zero are about and why they're important steps when starting a campaign in a fiction-first system. Also a lot of "Yes, but...", "Yes, and...", and "No, but..." type improv - those are the cornerstones at which makes these games work.

In a way, it's not unlike Freeform, but with guidelines to help keep the action moving, the gameplay fair, and most importantly, granting prompts for the improv. Hell, that's the whole point of Moves in PbtA - guidelines for improv for the aspects that are important to the genre of the specific game.

PbtA/FitD games demand trust and respect from the whole group. If you cannot trust the people you're playing with to be able play the game the way its designed, to be actually collaborative, it's a bad fit for those players. And that happens, nothing wrong with that. But if you got that trust, these games work. I mean, I've ran it successfully with my relentlessly casual manslaughter vagrants without having to bang my head against the book - it worked exactly as written. No fights, no arguments, just the occasional discussion on how things should progress, and a whole lot of laughing at the ridiculous methods the group opts to use.

 

That all said, I honestly had a very hard time wrapping my head around PbtA/FitD games until I actually tried it. It plays out a lot easier and simpler than it sounds on paper, especially in a live session. You may just need to give it a go for it to click for you.

[Actana]

Honestly, I don't think they even need that much more trust than the average game. Just that everyone plays by the rules. Which are there to provide those exact situations they are made to provide, depending on the game and genre.

 

Overall, I think you're vastly overthinking the games and how they play in practice. It also sounds like you haven't played any, and are working off assumptions that aren't really relevant to the games. Because saying that they don't deliver what they promise runs counter to the many, many hours I have had playing them where they explicitly provide what they promised in extremely satisfying ways.

[Tecmes]

21 hours ago, Yamazaki said:

It requires trust between players and GM that everyone wants to create the best story possible together. Gameplay is a conversation, a term that is insanely important to the PbtA/FitD domain - conversation. And the moment you consider it a negotiation or argument, the whole thing will break down.

Ooh yes, thanks, that's a very clear way to point out a real issue with trust in my mindset, which I fully recognize.

This is something that @cailano also said to me Re:OSRs: trust is key. My reply to that is you don't need trust if you don't need a GM. Which shows that I basically don't trust... the GM framework. You have to have trust, because you have to have a GM.

But what's the issue with trust anyway? That's the psycho-social part of my stance. Fundamentally, I believe the RPG hobby exists because of people who felt let down, socially, and therefore shouldn't be asked to rely on conversation and trust. Yet, almost from the start, GMs existed, and made themselves indispensable with a promise: "trust me, follow me, and I'll make this game work". But shouldn't games work by themselves?

Conversation might be required, but that's a social thing, and isn't that the kind of thing that geeks/nerds were precisely trying to eschew and seek refuge from in damp church basements filled with chits and hexes?

In other words, I don't trust... trust itself... And it's not me "vs GM", is "me vs. all GMs, as a general idea"!

 

And yes, @Actana, you're very right, I AM definitely overthinking - it does hamper my simply playing a game and enjoying it. Mind you, that's why I'm almost exclusively a GM, and it works well; but I'm perverse enough that it annoys me when the game works because the players trust me, rather than the game alone! That's why I'm always thriving for "full disclosure", that is explain every mechanic I use and every detail on how I'm not making GM decisions based on what players say, but based on rules or pre-game decisions.

That's the way my feverish mind works, I'm afraid, and I wish I could switch that off!

Edited November 23, 2023 by Tecmes (see edit history)

[Actana]

I find that I trust the GMs more in PbtA and FitD games because of the rules. The rules ascribe things to the GM that enforce that trust better through rules that work in more consistent ways than the implicit idea of "the GM gets the final say, and they can change the rules how they want" that a lot of other games have.

[Vladim]

I think trust is super-important especially in things like games, where there's a vast power asymmetry between players and the GM. The GM can do almost anything they want after all, from creating hugely powerful antagonists to pulling a "rocks fall, everyone dies". Some games even say in their rules that the GM is always right (an attitude I don't particularly care for, but it's prevalent).

But it's not trust about the game working. It's trust in fulfilling a pre-agreed upon social contract and the expectations, as discussed in a session 0. Whether the game works or not... I think that's to be discovered in play.

[cailano]

3 hours ago, Vladim said:

 

But it's not trust about the game working. It's trust in fulfilling a pre-agreed upon social contract and the expectations, as discussed in a session 0. Whether the game works or not... I think that's to be discovered in play.

I agree with this statement.

As far as the games running themselves, well, I guess they can in a solo RPG. Those can be fun.

It's also possible to get an experience much like a solo RPG playing games like Gloomhaven or the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game.

And of course there are computer games. I'm on like my fifth playthrough of Icewind Dale and I would rate it favorably compared to several over the table campaigns I've been involved in. My gosh I love IWD.

But it IS possible to trust a GM. Being a GM is a hard job in some ways but there are good ones.

But there is compromise there, too. If one has a GM one cannot control all aspects of the story. If that is what you want, then solo RPGs or fiction writing are the way to go.

[Tecmes]

On 11/21/2023 at 3:40 PM, Yamazaki said:

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.

Thanks for pointing this out. I, of course, love the premise. I ran a similar dungeon-monster game using PF1, which was fun eventhough the dungeon part could not work (PF1 monsters are poorly-balanced, hence terribly balanced in the hands of players. Think PC Succubus.)

However, I checked WO, and there's the same exact situation as BitD: it underlines how the raid/score is the crucial part of the game, yet leaves a gaping void there, (albeit with much demands put on the GM allthewhile repeating it's co-narrated with the players!?)

So again.. what am I missing? I feel simulatenously aggravated and utterly stupid, like 35 years of my thinking about RPGing meant nothing for understanding this game. OR like 50 years of RPG design brought us back to square one: here are some action rules, now make it work; you know, like, do some RPGing, dude.

Compare to Mouse Guard. MG outlines exactly what's going to happen during the travels (GM phase), in terms of challenge count and difficulty. Does it make the game any less fiction first or whatever claims BitD/WO makes? The only thing I see here is more of the same shoveling: "Here's a new game with a bold new vision for Fiction First. Now, make it so. We're not going to tell you how, just tell you what you must achieve."

Yes, I'm irritated. I can't fathom what prevents the authors from going one step further. Also I know "just try playing it". But there's just not enough to go on. I can't even understand how people go about playing the game confidently without just playing this like any other random classic RPG (I wouldn't see the point for that). It's not like the outcomes don't matter: at the very least they affect Blowback.

[Tecmes]

Let me clarify my point above with an example, and also someone might be able to help me discern what I'm doing wrong:

GM (start of raid phase; this is the approach setup): "The church is burning. Timbers are falling. You've underestimated the flammability of that roof. Soon it will collapse. On the altar stands their stupid god's effigy, looks likes solid gold, though. Likely to melt fast. Outside, the mob is fleeing, but Count Andrev's Helmriders are sure to be there soon."

PC#1: "Yikes! I can fly but I won't risk my wings burning. I use benches for cover as I madly rush for the gold. Risky, but worth it."

PC#2: :"No, forget it, remember we're after the crypt's corpses for our ritual. No time for poking around. I rile Gort into smashing the floor until he finds the crypt's entrance. Meanwhile I'll go out and I'll try to enchant the mob so that they delay the riders."

Note how the result of the raid are in fact entirely dependent on how hard the GM hits the players through the narrated situation. If he creates situations that they are ill-equipped to deal with, and judges their action's position/effect so, then it's going to work poorly. Even the Tier rules are just vague guidelines there. Same for the Loot rules: when should GM include Good Loot or Adventurer opportunities? That makes a difference, and it's a pure GM decision, certainly not "play to see what happens".

That'd be OK if the game was indeed narrative, fiction-first. But it's not; you're building your dungeon and minions, etc. It's only narrative in the sense that it's vague. It's "fiction-first" in the sense that they thought of fiction ideas first, and rules are an afterthought, if any. Eventhough there are many tokenized things (e.g. 6 distinct raid plan types), they're just narrative lists! Knowing that I can make a Negotiation or a Stealth strike is useful for inspiration, not for running it.

In the end, I see not the difference between this gameplay above and doing some classic D&D of some kind. Which I don't, for the same reasons.

[Yamazaki]

1 hour ago, Tecmes said:

However, I checked WO, and there's the same exact situation as BitD: it underlines how the raid/score is the crucial part of the game, yet leaves a gaping void there, (albeit with much demands put on the GM allthewhile repeating it's co-narrated with the players!?)

So again.. what am I missing? I feel simulatenously aggravated and utterly stupid, like 35 years of my thinking about RPGing meant nothing for understanding this game. OR like 50 years of RPG design brought us back to square one: here are some action rules, now make it work; you know, like, do some RPGing, dude.

The best was to answer this is very very simple - you are simply overthinking this. You are looking for peoceedures and generators, when none are part of the rules.

I get why you're frustrated. You're used to games that would have that specific kind of support because they would need it. But that's not the case with FitD, as it supports itself by just figuring out as it goes. They are designed to be low-prep, because you should be creating on the fly.

But maybe I have something that might help. Some folks on r/bladesinthedark occasionally post score ideas, and some of the extra prepwork they put into these ideas. Here's one such score. No idea if it'll help, but I know they're handy for my own needs.

Otherwise, you should just watch a few podcasts of folks playing. Or find a pick up game to join and test the waters. I feel that you have a number of hangups regarding how you feel the game should work, but the only way to overcome it is by just playing.

[Tecmes]

Alright, I hereby pledge I will put forward the idea of playing to various players I game with and I'll do my best to whip a few sessions of WO. We'll work together to play the game as close as possible to its intent. I have no doubt it'll be fun, but I'll report on how it went theory-wise.

[Yamazaki]

Good luck!

[Tecmes]

And so I DID follow through on this pledge and played 4 sessions of WO with 3 players. We're due for a fifth session but as I'm leaving MW I post now.

I won't be WoTing because I realized it's basically some form of generational divide on what "playing a RPG" means and my critical comments are pointless. If you're an 80s gamer and thinking of games in terms of challenge and bottom-up rules, it's not for you. It's a pretend game, in the sense that it's a framework affording grown-ups to do pretend-play and narrate stories without sounding like dorks.

We had fun, to be sure, with the quest of our Bullywug Marauder for longjohns, or the utter incompetence of the monsters to achieve any goal. But if I want to have fun narrating the story of a dungeon, I'll do free-form on Mythweaver, thank you. (Well if MW was compatible with my browser, that is).