Help me "get" Forged in the Dark.

[Grendel_Khan]

Interesting. For me, it seems almost like the easier choice for trad gamers because it is so constrained. Like, in a trad game that is a sandbox, there are always players beleaguered by option paralysis. I can only imagine it gets worse when not only CAN they do "anything" but they are also HAVE to. When a friend of mine known for running great BitD con games introduced me and a few friends to it at my request, the tendency from a player standpoint was to respond to GM prompts in a way that wasn't really how things were supposed to go. I feel like that is harder than being given a narrower focus then asked to exercise freedom. You can run around all you want INSIDE the paddock, basically.

That makes a lot of sense to me. I think that Band probably is easier to process as a trad player first coming to FitD/PbtA. But as a GM, I still think it might be tougher, at least when it comes to building those improvisational instincts and skills, which are so far beyond anything that trad games call for. But I'm likely only saying that because of my own experience with finally figuring out how to run this stuff.

 

[Fenris-77]

The 'lack' of prep in FitD games generally is tough to wrap your noodle around, or at least I found it so initially. You don't and shouldn't prep what might commonly be called 'plot' of course, as that really pushes back against the system in an unhelpful way. However, you could and perhaps should 'prep' in terms of having an idea what objects are in motion in the setting outside the orbit of the players' decision making. Knowing what factions/NPCs/fictional bits might play in to adjudication can help smooth out that process at the table. It's not exactly prep in the traditional sense, but it is certainly something that can be done in between sessions to some degree. I could say the same about possible consequences and intersection between the various clocks that might be in play for the group or individuals in the group as well. Nothing should be decided or set in stone of course, but having some notion of how things could play out is really helpful.

 

[thullgrim]

As someone has BitD but hasn't run it because I'm chicken this thread as awesome!

 

[Reynard]

Clocks are my next area of questions:

First, are they always open? Do players know the state of all the clocks that are in play?

Second, are they "hit points?" By that I mean, the book seems to suggest that the undead dragon doesn't have stats, but defeating it is a clock and if you don't fill it up before it fills up yours(?) you lose and suffer undead dragon consequences? Is that right?

 

[Fenris-77]

So, just to extrapolate the example so I can understand the GM's role in this:

The players on the provision run decide they are going to load up the sacks of grain and pigs in the wagon whether the villagers like it or not. The deserter and his bunch of thugs flex to let the soldiers know they aren't having it.

Now what?

I gather it isn't D&D where you roll initiative and go around the table. The players now say what they want to happen next, and what Action they are taking (individually? collectively?) to make that happen. Based on that, the GM decides how risky that is, which determines the severity of possible consequences?

You could add to the framing elements there some additional NPC details, especially motivations and whatnot, as those can help you figure out how that NPC or group reacts to whatever the PCs decide to do. In this case, the Deserter is probably most important, but it might also be helpful to have a little note about how the villagers are feeling as well since the whole population might get spun into the action depending on what the PCs do.

You might get an individual action from a PC here, or even a group action. Either way, you take the action, whatever it is, and set it next to the framing elements in place. For example, based on some motivations for the deserter the reaction/adjudication/consequences might be very different for some sort of intimidation or violence as compared to something more like negotiation.

Let's say someone tries negotiation - then you decide how likely that is to convince the Deserter (effect) and the likelihood of negative consequences (postion). The player(s) in turn then decide to manipulate that opening frame by adding dice (through help, stress or DBs) or exchanging position for effect. So maybe you think there's some real risk (risky position) and a slim likelihood of success (limited effect) in the negotiation idea. The players could add dice or swap up to desperate position (upping the consequences) for standard effect (upping the level of success on a good roll). You can be pretty blunt about what might happen on a failed roll. Then they roll, and you decide how the consequences play out given the roll (fail/limited success/success) set next to the negotiated frame and consequences.

 

[Fenris-77]

Clocks are my next area of questions:

First, are they always open? Do players know the state of all the clocks that are in play?

Second, are they "hit points?" By that I mean, the book seems to suggest that the undead dragon doesn't have stats, but defeating it is a clock and if you don't fill it up before it fills up yours(?) you lose and suffer undead dragon consequences? Is that right?

Generally yes. Clocks can be used for almost anything that escapes the ability to resolve in a single roll. Long term projects, faction shenanigans, hit points, chases, contests, etc etc etc. As far as open or not, I generally run them open in all cases as it helps the players make informed decisions. Some clocks could be run hidden though, it just depends on the FitD flavor and the table expectations (GM and player).

 

[Reynard]

You could add to the framing elements there some additional NPC details, especially motivations and whatnot, as those can help you figure out how that NPC or group reacts to whatever the PCs decide to do. In this case, the Deserter is probably most important, but it might also be helpful to have a little note about how the villagers are feeling as well since the whole population might get spun into the action depending on what the PCs do.

You might get an individual action from a PC here, or even a group action. Either way, you take the action, whatever it is, and set it next to the framing elements in place. For example, based on some motivations for the deserter the reaction/adjudication/consequences might be very different for some sort of intimidation or violence as compared to something more like negotiation.

Let's say someone tries negotiation - then you decide how likely that is to convince the Deserter (effect) and the likelihood of negative consequences (postion). The player(s) in turn then decide to manipulate that opening frame by adding dice (through help, stress or DBs) or exchanging position for effect. So maybe you think there's some real risk (risky position) and a slim likelihood of success (limited effect) in the negotiation idea. The players could add dice or swap up to desperate position (upping the consequences) for standard effect (upping the level of success on a good roll). You can be pretty blunt about what might happen on a failed roll. Then they roll, and you decide how the consequences play out given the roll (fail/limited success/success) set next to the negotiated frame and consequences.

Is a desperate consequence then a fight starts (for example) or harm is done (the assumption is that a fight starts and the PCs get beat because they failed)? I guess what I am asking is how granular is it?

Again, just for comparison sake:

In D&D or Savage Worlds or whatever, the PCs would try a Persuasion roll and if they failed we would roll initiative. If it is not that, what is it in Band?

 

[Grendel_Khan]

So, just to extrapolate the example so I can understand the GM's role in this:

The players on the provision run decide they are going to load up the sacks of grain and pigs in the wagon whether the villagers like it or not. The deserter and his bunch of thugs flex to let the soldiers know they aren't having it.

Now what?

I gather it isn't D&D where you roll initiative and go around the table. The players now say what they want to happen next, and what Action they are taking (individually? collectively?) to make that happen. Based on that, the GM decides how risky that is, which determines the severity of possible consequences?

Since FitD is all about PC decisions, you need to be clear about the threat here. So saying that the toughs are flexing isn't necessarily enough. You should really let the PCs know that they'll have to go through them. The PCs then decide if they want to try some sort of diplomacy, or are going to attack.

Now if the threat of the toughs has been clearly established, and the PCs start loading up anyway, you could have combat start with one or more of the toughs inflicting some sort of consequence before the PCs can react. In that case, someone would have to do a Restistance roll to avoid or reduce that consequence.

In other words, initiative is more of a situation thing. In a straight-forward fight, you basically thinking of it as everyone is acting at once, and the actions the PCs take and the rolls they make (and other decisions, like using abilities, making resistance rolls, taking Devil's Bargains) might determine whether they take damage or don't. In a sense that's kind of a baked-in initiative roll—maybe the PC succeeded at an action that means they took the NPC down first. But if it's a more of an all-out melee scrum, and the PC is just wailing on dudes, then no degree of success will mean they come out unscathed. The best they can do is take out, push back—or whatever they said they wanted to do—as many enemies as possible while getting roughed up.

But if the PC(s) decide to ambush someone, that's its own action, right? And success on that roll might mean attacking someone without taking damage in return. Likewise, being ambushed means only a Resistance roll or similar will help the PC(s) respond.


Which is a long-winded way of saying that the fiction and the PCs' actions determine what we'd think of as initiative rolls in other games.

As to the order of events, there's definitely some flexibility there, and to be honest I feel a little out of my depth giving advice about resolving two groups of opponents in a straightahead FitD melee situation. But the way I'd do it is to figure out the position, effect, etc. for the first player who pipes up with a proposed action ("I want to tackle the deserter to the ground!"), give space for others to say whether they're assisting that effort—provided it makes sense in the fiction that they can even react, if it was a surprising move—and probably go around the table to ask what everyone is doing, before starting in with the rolls and results. I think the exact order of what and when to resolve is flexible.

But...I also think a lot of straightforward, evenly matched melee combats in FitD maybe aren't that interesting. As with other situations, ideally it's about the stakes, and the PCs' goal. Is it just about killing these toughs? Or is it about taking them down nonlethally, to avoid alienating the townspeople and creating more enemies? Is it about challenging the deserter to a "fair" fistfight to settle things? The flexibility of the system and the overall approach mean you can avoid defaulting to combat, the way we would in a lot of trad games, and have a wider range of narrative options and outcomes. Combat can still happen, and maybe even more times per session than in a trad game (since it's quicker to resolve), but it can be more of a narrative tool—fighting through a horde to get somewhere or to get away, for example. For this kind of scene, I'd focus on what's really at stake, which is probably more interesting than whether soldiers can murder some local tough guys. To me it's more about how the PCs want to deal with the town as a whole, whether that's earning their respect and trust, or striking abject fear into them, or whatever else they decide to try.

 

[Reynard]

But...I also think a lot of straightforward, evenly matched melee combats in FitD maybe aren't that interesting. As with other situations, ideally it's about the stakes, and the PCs' goal. Is it just about killing these toughs? Or is it about taking them down nonlethally, to avoid alienating the townspeople and creating more enemies? Is it about challenging the deserter to a "fair" fistfight to settle things? The flexibility of the system and the overall approach mean you can avoid defaulting to combat, the way we would in a lot of trad games, and have a wider range of narrative options and outcomes. Combat can still happen, and maybe even more times per session than in a trad game (since it's quicker to resolve), but it can be more of a narrative tool—fighting through a horde to get somewhere or to get away, for example. For this kind of scene, I'd focus on what's really at stake, which is probably more interesting than whether soldiers can murder some local tough guys. To me it's more about how the PCs want to deal with the town as a whole, whether that's earning their respect and trust, or striking abject fear into them, or whatever else they decide to try.

That makes sense. Don't assume a fight -- just assume the PCs need to do SOMETHING in regards to the deserter and his gang. That's the obstacle. Encourage the players to come up with something interesting and thematically appropriate but not "direct" them. I imagine that can take some work with players transitioning from more straightforward RPGs.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

Clocks are my next area of questions:

First, are they always open? Do players know the state of all the clocks that are in play?

Second, are they "hit points?" By that I mean, the book seems to suggest that the undead dragon doesn't have stats, but defeating it is a clock and if you don't fill it up before it fills up yours(?) you lose and suffer undead dragon consequences? Is that right?

In general, FitD seems to encourage erring toward giving players more information, rather than less. But you could definitely make a clock mysterious—enemies are approaching, or even something bad is going to happen—if you want to keep things mysterious.

And yes, you can and absolutely should, in some cases, use clocks as HP, but generally (imo) only for NPCs, groups of NPCs, etc. But in some cases that could apply to a PC too.

For example, let's say you want to show that an enemy is a ridiculously adept swordmaster who can block and parry incoming attacks. Maybe you give them a clock for his defenses, and the PCs have to fill it before they can do any damage. But it could refresh at some consistent rate, and/or based on their actions and rolls.

But if, say, this swordmaster was on par, skillwise, with a PC, and it was a straightforward duel. Maybe in that case you do two clocks, and do an extended sword fight where it's about whose defenses, endurance, etc. is worn down first, across many rolls and actions. In that case you're basically using clocks as HP for both the PC and NPC, but with a twist—it's not HP, so much as armor (mechanically speaking) that you'd have to get through before the person takes damage, or yields.

Clocks are also a great way to give yourself a breather as a GM. Don't know exactly what to do for a consequence? Start a clock, and figure it out in more detail as things develop.


Also, a lot of FitD campaigns mean building up a huge slew of clocks, some for the current session, some for long-term threats or PC projects. Clocks everywhere. They're great.