What is the point of GM's notes?

[Ovinomancer]

From what I can see, there'd be no difference in the players' experience at the table. I dunno if that'd make it bad GMing in BitD.

"Bad" is a hard say, unless the solitaire play violates some other principle of play, like, say, if you're using your solitaire play to suddenly drive story for the PCs instead of being an outgrowth of what the PCs are doing. That's bad, in Blades. As I said earlier, though, advancing a clock as you introduce it isn't bad, so I guess advancing it prior to isn't bad, either. The real issue is how the introduction is framed and what it's doing in the game.

 

[prabe]

I recalled I wanted to speak to this, but the thread was moving quickly at the time and I lost it.

I think that if the PCs BIFTs are not evoking these things, then there's a serious disconnect in what players are writing down for BIFTs and what they're actually doing for BIFTs. Because, regardless of whether or not you write these down, the bonds, ideals, and flaws (less so for traits) a character has are defining dramatic needs for that character. If you're not using them, okay, but that shouldn't be moving that what these are describing are core to (at least some) PC dramatic needs. Heck, "bond" is a front and center one -- what do you care about so much that you'll sacrifice for it? This opens up all kinds of interesting dilemmas -- how much will you sacrifice? What will you sacrifice? Will something else happen that becomes more important? These are the kinds of questions that dramatic needs create, not "will we stop the evil overlord and save the world." That doesn't require any dramatic need, just a willingness to buy into a plot hook.

I don't particularly disagree with this. The thing is, dramatic needs change with play, so a character's need to exact revenge on the thing (Ildna) that killed his family might turn into a need to diminish the influence of that thing's creator (The Tundra Queen) in the world and/or rid the world of the artifact (The Epiphany Machine) that broke the that thing. I incorporate needs like that into scenarios, without needing to worry about specific things on a character sheet.

My feeling is, put Bond, Flaw, Ideal, and Traits on your character sheet, but use them to remind you how you're playing this character. If you give me a copy of your character's backstory, we can work to tie your character to the setting and the campaign. Regardless, once I get to know the characters, I can work to engage them as they are.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I don't particularly disagree with this. The thing is, dramatic needs change with play, so a character's need to exact revenge on the thing (Ildna) that killed his family might turn into a need to diminish the influence of that thing's creator (The Tundra Queen) in the world and/or rid the world of the artifact (The Epiphany Machine) that broke the that thing. I incorporate needs like that into scenarios, without needing to worry about specific things on a character sheet.

My feeling is, put Bond, Flaw, Ideal, and Traits on your character sheet, but use them to remind you how you're playing this character. If you give me a copy of your character's backstory, we can work to tie your character to the setting and the campaign. Regardless, once I get to know the characters, I can work to engage them as they are.

Right, this is a complaint that 5e implemented the concept poorly, such that it's easier for many to just do it how they used to. To me, the lack of any structure or reward for paying off a BIFT, like how Burning Wheel does with beliefs, is a massive missed opportunity to add a neat feature to the game. It would have also given a toolset to operationalize the BIFTs. I think they elected not to, to basically float a neutered concept, because they realized that their primary revenue stream in 5e was going to be the sale of adventures, and BIFTs don't work well with the kind of adventures WotC wants to sell (heck, I'm not sure the 5e works well with the kind of adventures WotC wants to sell).

 

[prabe]

Right, this is a complaint that 5e implemented the concept poorly, such that it's easier for many to just do it how they used to. To me, the lack of any structure or reward for paying off a BIFT, like how Burning Wheel does with beliefs, is a massive missed opportunity to add a neat feature to the game. It would have also given a toolset to operationalize the BIFTs. I think they elected not to, to basically float a neutered concept, because they realized that their primary revenue stream in 5e was going to be the sale of adventures, and BIFTs don't work well with the kind of adventures WotC wants to sell (heck, I'm not sure the 5e works well with the kind of adventures WotC wants to sell).

Pretty much--both your analysis of the mechanic and your analysis of why WotC didn't write a stronger one (with the possible addition that they wanted it to feel like D&D, especially to people who'd rejected 4E, and arguably a strong mechanic here wouldn't have).

Also, I picked up 5E after gradually-then-abruptly coming to strongly dislike Fate, so I was ... disinclined to embrace anything at all reminiscent of Aspects. Speaks more to my tossing the mechanic out of my games than anything broader.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Sorry, BIFTs frustrate me greatly. I've even tried @iserith's rule where players can, on their own, claim inspiration for invoking a BIFT (once each per session) and my players absolutely ignore it. They have no problems leveraging such things in other games, are even eager to do so, but in D&D? It's strange, sometimes, to watch them play different games, and see how much their approach changes depending on what game it is. I have a player that is absolutely balls-to-the-wall in Blades, reckless and daring, leveraging everything that system offers, but, in D&D, they are as methodical and plodding, trying to play 20 questions, afraid in every seeming moment that there's a gotcha, despite the fact that I just don't do gotchas. When we talk about it, they know there's nothing there, but it feels like that's how they should be playing. I blame prior GMs just being horrible. Amusingly (not really), if my group really wants to see this player turn that dial to 11, we just ask him to run. He's horrible with the gotchas! And, not really allowed to run for us, anymore (which he views with relief, I think).

Anyway, BIFTs are terribly instantiated in 5e, and as such, often deserve to be treated as the appendix of that system.

 

[Maxperson]

Sorry, BIFTs frustrate me greatly. I've even tried @iserith's rule where players can, on their own, claim inspiration for invoking a BIFT (once each per session) and my players absolutely ignore it. They have no problems leveraging such things in other games, are even eager to do so, but in D&D? It's strange, sometimes, to watch them play different games, and see how much their approach changes depending on what game it is. I have a player that is absolutely balls-to-the-wall in Blades, reckless and daring, leveraging everything that system offers, but, in D&D, they are as methodical and plodding, trying to play 20 questions, afraid in every seeming moment that there's a gotcha, despite the fact that I just don't do gotchas. When we talk about it, they know there's nothing there, but it feels like that's how they should be playing. I blame prior GMs just being horrible. Amusingly (not really), if my group really wants to see this player turn that dial to 11, we just ask him to run. He's horrible with the gotchas! And, not really allowed to run for us, anymore (which he views with relief, I think).

Anyway, BIFTs are terribly instantiated in 5e, and as such, often deserve to be treated as the appendix of that system.

Does he run other games that way, or just D&D? It sounds like it may not be prior DMs, but rather how he views the way D&D is "supposed" to be run. He may see himself and how we runs D&D in any D&D game he plays in, so he's careful to try and avoid the gotchas that he would put into place.

 

[loverdrive]

A quick question. What is BIFT?

 

[Fenris-77]

@Lanefan , @Emerikol, @Bedrockgames , @Maxperson , @prabe (whose, besides @pemerton , answer to the above proposed hypothetical looks to me to have engaged closest with my intent).

I felt like my hypothetical and my clarifications were clear, but it must be true that we still have misunderstanding or I'm just terrible at articulating what I'm getting at here. So I'm going to punt to @hawkeyefan and @Fenris-77 with a more fleshed out hypothetical. Perhaps this more fleshed out hypothetical and their answers to it will better ground what I'm getting at here. Then I'm going to have to step away from responding for the rest of the day.

Alright, @hawkeyefan and @Fenris-77 ...

Let us say that tonight's game somehow finds its way into Ironhook Prison:



Haight (hawkeyefan's PC) did a nice-sized turn there so its feasible that our game goes there at some point. Let us just pretend that it goes there tonight.

IN THE COURSE OF OUR PLAY, Haight and Stiv (Fenris's PC) have neither been to Ironhook Prison or to the ward that it resides within:



They have no interacted with either of the below two Factions (who do most of their Duskvol work in Dunslough) or the Dunslough "Crime Boss":





Now, one of the PCs (offscreen as part of backstory) did a turn at Ironhook. He (offscreen) has likely has interactions with all of the above (or at least heard of them). The other PC (offscreen) may have heard of some of the above and may have even been to Dunslough once or twice.

HOWEVER, to reiterate, in the course of play, all of this stuff is effectively offscreen. It has not come up to date in our play. Consequently, it is effectively "off-line" in terms of what is happening with that content.

So, let us just say, hypothetically, you guys do a Score in the Ironhook Prison tonight where you sneak in and then sneak out thing x (which could be a person, a ghost that is using Haight or his trap as a repository, illicit goods, what-have-you).

Let us say you interact with all 5 of the above (obviously the Ward and the prison, but also Master Krocket and the two Factions). Suddenly, ALL 5 ARE ON-LINE AT ONCE.

What value for our play tonight (Skilled Play priority, Story Now priority, Protagonistic Play priority, Living World priority...any priority you wish) would there be if I:

(a) reframed all of those 5 things quote-blocked above FROM (i) the initial framing in the text + (ii) my own subtle, improvised reframing to hook into your evinced dramatic needs for your PCs...

TO

(b) new content that is a downstream effects of 5 resolution segments of 3 Downtime (phase) Clocks (one for both factions and one for Krocket) and made a Fortune roll or two as a downstream consequence of what emerges from the resolution of those 3 Clocks.

So, for instance, instead of what is in the book and what I would improvise in my scene-framing, the following is now true (which wasn't true in the initiating conditions):

* Master Krocket recently quelled a riot and his dogs had quite a feast.

* The Deathland Scavengers have obtained a pardon for a member from Ironhook Prison.

* The Lost are focusing their efforts on Coalridge instead of Dunslough.

Any value you can you imagine (or not imagine...I leave this to you) for the above being true vs all 3 being the opposite during your Score (a viscious riot happens, TDS is in the middle of trying to get that pardon while you're sneaking in, TL are focusing efforts in Dunslough. Or 1 or 2 of them being true vs not being true. Or some slightly different instantiation of the above. Or something very different.

Outside of a value judgement about the provocativeness or excitement of this framing vs that framing, what value would there be on our play tonight if I evolved the starting conditions for all or some of these prior offline (but now online) things from stock Blades to something different (which is an outgrowth of the process of Faction/Setting Clocks and Fortune Rolls)?

Would you know the difference (again, assuming that the evolution from their starting condition x to their new situation y has nothing to do with our play to date...which there is no reason for any of our play to have impacted Dunslough thus far...if the Barrowcleft situation resolves badly and there is food shortages throughout all of Duskvol, then yeah...but that hasn't come to pass yet)?

I'm going to start at the bottom and work my way back up. Would I know the difference? Well, yes and no. If I'm familiar with the Blades setting material I know none of those specifics are included, so yes. That said, could I tell the difference between them being evolved before hand or as a direct result of consequences in play? Perhaps, and mostly in a negative way for the evolved-first material. Let's take the pardon as the specific example. If that came up in play, but for no particular reason, i.e. not linked to any of character decisions or the subsequent consequences in the course of play, or the context in which we encountered the Scavengers, then yes, I could tell. If that change isn't contextualized there's no reason for it to exist and it sticks out like a sore thumb. It would only matter if our interactions with the Scavengers were such that the existence of a recent pardon had a reason to come up. I'll allow the above to stand in for the other examples.

As for value? None in particular. None of that info is useful or important unless it bears directly on our chosen task and evolving plan. In those cases the info would emerge as part of information gathering, or as a discovered fact framed in the course of play, or even as part of a consequence flowing from decisions made in play. None of those require it to be determined before hand, and doing so has no impact on play aside from perhaps shoving you in the direction of that stuff (as it's already prepped) during play, appropriate or not. Once you have those ideas in your pocket the natural tendency is to want to use them. Moreover, as the score progresses, some of those ideas suffer a lot.

Let's say near the end of the score we're making a quick get away and Krocket looses the hounds, at which point you say A-hah, the dogs are well fed and lazy from feasting during the quelling of the riot, take +1d. To which I reply Wait, what riot? We've been though Iron Heights just now and there was no evidence of a riot, where'd that come from? The issue at this point is sequence and context. That same bit of info about Krocket and his dogs might have been a tasty tidbit to learn before we got stuck in, or even as something we quickly discover as we deal with the riot fallout while we're on our score, but the further into the scene we get, the less sense it makes. This kind of game state evolution is very context dependent. Sometimes pre-prepped stuff might fit like a glove, but often it won't, and if you're going to work it on the fly, why do it in advance in the first place?

 

[prabe]

A quick question. What is BIFT?

It's an acronym for Bond, Ideal, Flaw, Trait. Took me a moment, too. (But I suspect it's just the way @Ovinomancer thinks about the mechanic, so I have no complaints.)

 

[Ovinomancer]

It's an acronym for Bond, Ideal, Flaw, Trait. Took me a moment, too. (But I suspect it's just the way @Ovinomancer thinks about the mechanic, so I have no complaints.)

Yep, sorry, saw IBFT being used and subbed in my preferred acronym.