Help me "get" Forged in the Dark.

[innerdude]

*Edit: I love Ovinomancer's post just before this, talking about how the score is set up. He's exactly right, in that the players are setting the scene, and it's assumed by principles of the game that what they say is true.

As a GM you're very, very rarely going to outright declare something is a hard and fast truth that doesn't evolve from player declarations and action resolution. The players don't get complete freedom over the setting, per se, but in many cases things they say become "truths" about the game world, and that's 100% intended by RAW.

 

[Reynard]

Well, one, the players are going to tell you what the mission is, and how they're approaching it, and then the engagement roll will say how it's supposed to open. This is the hard shift stuff, because it's very different from D&D preplanning or prep or even GM says improv. The GM is reactive here -- they have to wait for the players to tell them what they're doing, how their doing it, and then the engagement roll to see how it's going when you start in media res.

I didn't get the bolded impression from reading the mission section. The way I understood it, there are multiple (preferably 3) missions on the table, defined by the GM (possibly designed, possibly the result of rolls), and the players (technically, one player) decides which mission is the main mission, which is secondary and ignores the 3rd. For the main mission, the engagement roll determines the state at the beginning of actual play by determining the outcome and consequences of the PCs engaging (natch) the first obstacle. basically, a way to establish the in media res circumstances.

Did I misread?

 

[hawkeyefan]

I do feel like I am getting a little bit of contradictory advice in that it sounds like like I'm supposed to decide what happens (consequences) at the same time players are (outcomes). Can someone speak to what im mixing up there.

I think perhaps the confusion is about the goal of an action, compared to the outcome. So any time a player rolls, they should state what they hope to achieve. The GM should make what’s at risk clear. So before a roll is made, we have a good idea of what happens on a Success (the PC achieves their stated goal) and what happens on a Failure (the danger manifests). On a result of 4-5, it’s a Success With Consequence, which means the PC achieves their goal, but also suffers a consequence of some sort.

In BoB am I still doing that as part of my scene setting, or am I supposed to invent those sorts of things only in response to actions and roll results. If the former, I am still not sure how the GMs job significantly departs from other ways of playing in which you give players lots of room to choose their goals and approaches.

I think @Grendel_Khan offered a good take on this. I’ll add that the answer is both. The players are going to select the mission (and the side mission, if I recall), so the players are going to decide if they’re going to try and requisition from the town, or scout the ravine to see if it’s a shortcut. Whatever mission they choose, there are going to be obstacles in their way.

When a mission begins, the GM needs to establish an initial obstacle for the characters to face. If the players decided to requisition goods from the town, the idea that some townsfolk may have a problem with that fits perfectly, so yes, I think you could introduce this as an obstacle.

You might consider to establish this in bits and pieces, across a few rolls. So maybe a couple of angry townsfolk mention how angry Hagnar will be when he finds out. You’ve now established a kind of threat, and then you can have Hagnar arrive as a Consequence. Once he arrives, the townsfolk may get bolder. Maybe Hagnar’s just a firebrand type of guy who can whip up a mob. Maybe he’s a deserter and a capable fighter. You can establish these things in play rather than ahead of time, if it makes sense to do so. In this way, you’re starting with just an idea of a threat and then building it up through play.

Alternatively, you could just introduce this deserter and his gang as an obstacle to face right away. You just want to make sure that you’re ready to introduce other consequences if needed. I think the Engagement roll and the nature of the mission are big factors here.

 

[Reynard]

The players don't get complete freedom over the setting, per se, but in many cases things they say become "truths" about the game world, and that's 100% intended by RAW.

I haven't read the whole book yet but I haven't gotten that impression. So far it seems like the players decide what they do and how they do it, the dice decide the results, and the GM interprets the results into the fiction. Or I am as confused as ever.

 

[innerdude]

I think @Grendel_Khan offered a good take on this. I’ll add that the answer is both. The players are going to select the mission (and the side mission, if I recall), so the players are going to decide if they’re going to try and requisition from the town, or scout the ravine to see if it’s a shortcut. Whatever mission they choose, there are going to be obstacles in their way.

When a mission begins, the GM needs to establish an initial obstacle for the characters to face. If the players decided to requisition goods from the town, the idea that some townsfolk may have a problem with that fits perfectly, so yes, I think you could introduce this as an obstacle.

You might consider to establish this in bits and pieces, across a few rolls. So maybe a couple of angry townsfolk mention how angry Hagnar will be when he finds out. You’ve now established a kind of threat, and then you can have Hagnar arrive as a Consequence. Once he arrives, the townsfolk may get bolder. Maybe Hagnar’s just a firebrand type of guy who can whip up a mob. Maybe he’s a deserter and a capable fighter. You can establish these things in play rather than ahead of time . . . .

@Reynard -- this advice from @hawkeyefan is pure gold in terms of approach.

 

[Reynard]

@Reynard -- this advice from @hawkeyefan is pure gold in terms of approach.

I agree, but doesn't that kind of run counter to your description? @hawkeyefan seems to be saying the GM still defines the world (in response to the players and the dice) where you seemed to suggest the players had more of a role in that regard. So I remain confused.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I didn't get the bolded impression from reading the mission section. The way I understood it, there are multiple (preferably 3) missions on the table, defined by the GM (possibly designed, possibly the result of rolls), and the players (technically, one player) decides which mission is the main mission, which is secondary and ignores the 3rd. For the main mission, the engagement roll determines the state at the beginning of actual play by determining the outcome and consequences of the PCs engaging (natch) the first obstacle. basically, a way to establish the in media res circumstances.

Did I misread?

No, this is an area where Band of Blades differs from Blades in the Dark and many other FitD games. The mission selection is narrowed down to a few choices presented by the GM. Then the player who’s acting as the Commander (I think that’s the legion role) decides which will be the Primary mission and which will be secondary. Any others are ignored, with possible consequences.

The missions are determined randomly. Although depending on the location ofthe Legion, there are also Special Missions specific to that location that can come up.

In standard Blades and many other FitD games, this is not quite how it works. The GM may suggest sometype of score, ormore than one, but the players are also free to come up with their own ideas.

 

[Reynard]

Separately:

It appears that some traditionally GM tasks are divided up amongst players in the Campaign Phase roles. Is that a fair description of how Campaign Phase is supposed to work?

More generally, what are folks experiences with the defined decision making roles in play. Do groups have a hard time with the Commander(?) telling you which mission you are going on and the Marshall(?) telling you which character you get to play?

 

[innerdude]

Well, one, the players are going to tell you what the mission is, and how they're approaching it, and then the engagement roll will say how it's supposed to open. This is the hard shift stuff, because it's very different from D&D preplanning or prep or even GM says improv. The GM is reactive here -- they have to wait for the players to tell them what they're doing, how their doing it, and then the engagement roll to see how it's going when you start in . . . once you open the scene, the players get to say how they're going to try and deal with it. And you, as GM, don't have "no" authority over those actions. Well, I mean, we're talking about non-bad-faith declarations, that aren't violating the principles of play for the players (like, "I find the solution to win in the toilet!"). Instead, you challenge them, and if they players succeed, what they're trying happens, or happens and you level a cost. If they fail, you level the consequence.

This is also golden advice. Especially the bold part. You'll find lots of new areas where previously as a GM, you might have prepped something ahead of time that would negate the players' intended course of action. In PbtA / FitD, in most cases your job as GM is to adjust the fiction to account for the players' intentions, but then bring the hammer in terms of consequences if they fail.

 

[Reynard]

In standard Blades and many other FitD games, this is not quite how it works. The GM may suggest sometype of score, ormore than one, but the players are also free to come up with their own ideas.

Gotcha. That sounds familiar from reading Blades in the Dark. I wonder if that means that Band is in fact a better choice for me to slide in, because it seems like is hold on to a few more trad ideas?