Help me "get" Forged in the Dark.

[Reynard]

For example, hypothetically, if a PC leaps at an undead armored enemy and attacks with their sword, and gets a clean success on a normal effect, that's normally going to be 2 ticks on that clock. But you don't do just that, you also describe how that attack has changed the situation -- in this case you could describe how the attack hits on the edge of the breastplate, and snaps the rotten straps there, tearing it loose and opening the target up to a clean blow, you've done that job.

For clarity, when you say "you" here, do you mean the GM or the player describes the outcome that moves the clock?

Everything changes the fiction. Success changes it. Failure changes it. Clocks are there to provide a pacing mechanism to the changes, so you don't go too far or not far enough.

Okay. That makes sense of why you don't really want to hide clocks.

 

[Reynard]

Side question that I probably shouldn't ask but I will: so what is the difference between FitD and PbtA (which i also don't get and have bounced off of). like, is Dungeon World just BitD in D&D trope land?

 

[Ovinomancer]

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?

Now what? Well, you've described the situation -- the thugs are not having it and are threatening violence. It's on the PCs, now. They need to do something about this, and that will start the normal loop. If they don't, if they ignore the threat and do something else, you treat this like a failure and pay it off. Maybe a PC decides that they're not going to worry about it and picks up a sack of grain from the cart to carry back. Fine, they do that, but when the turn around, one of the thugs has stepped up and landed a right hook on their face. Take Serious Harm, broken nose. Then you continue the threat -- the other thugs are up now, some grabbing weapons, what do you do. You've paid off your earlier threat that the PC ignored, and reiterated the same threat. Basically, levelling a risky consequence for ignoring a threat is a good call. Only do desperate if the situation is already there -- don't elevate because you think it silly to have ignored a threat, only do it if you've already set up that the situation is that bad. Same with controlled.

Sometimes, a player will make a rational choice to ignore one threat, especially if multiple threats are around. They'll eat that consequence to do something they feel is more important. This is part of the hard choices the game generates, and you should make sure you appropriately pay off the threat, but do it in a way that doesn't block the PC's intended other action.

 

[Ovinomancer]

For clarity, when you say "you" here, do you mean the GM or the player describes the outcome that moves the clock?

Okay. That makes sense of why you don't really want to hide clocks.

GM. Players in Blades don't narrate the outcomes, that's still the GM's job, but the GM has to be very deferential and honor PC intent and actions when narrating success (and failures, really). So players have significant inputs because they're the ones establishing what's going to happen on a success, at least in general. This is moderated through the position/effect discussion, and then the check, and then the GM narrates what's going on in the scene.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Side question that I probably shouldn't ask but I will: so what is the difference between FitD and PbtA (which i also don't get and have bounced off of). like, is Dungeon World just BitD in D&D trope land?

Same general concept of play, shared principles and agendas, different mechanics which set up different ways that it comes about in play. Blades is much more mechanically driven, and has some very nifty tech that PbtA is missing, but on the other hand PbtA gets to what I'd call a slightly more pure version of play -- there's no ability really to mitigate failure like there is in Blades, so everyone is taking what comes. PbtA games can, with a spate of failures, go very bad for PCs. It's harder to do this in Blades. The opposite is also true -- a spate of clean successes tends to resolve things quickly in PbtA, while that's not always the case in Blades. The clocks adding pacing and the position/effect discussion really kind of make Blades more predictable in play. Depending on what I was wanted to evoke would make a big difference in which set of rules I'd pick up. Or look to hack.

 

[Reynard]

Now what? Well, you've described the situation -- the thugs are not having it and are threatening violence. It's on the PCs, now. They need to do something about this, and that will start the normal loop. If they don't, if they ignore the threat and do something else, you treat this like a failure and pay it off. Maybe a PC decides that they're not going to worry about it and picks up a sack of grain from the cart to carry back. Fine, they do that, but when the turn around, one of the thugs has stepped up and landed a right hook on their face. Take Serious Harm, broken nose. Then you continue the threat -- the other thugs are up now, some grabbing weapons, what do you do. You've paid off your earlier threat that the PC ignored, and reiterated the same threat. Basically, levelling a risky consequence for ignoring a threat is a good call. Only do desperate if the situation is already there -- don't elevate because you think it silly to have ignored a threat, only do it if you've already set up that the situation is that bad. Same with controlled.

Sometimes, a player will make a rational choice to ignore one threat, especially if multiple threats are around. They'll eat that consequence to do something they feel is more important. This is part of the hard choices the game generates, and you should make sure you appropriately pay off the threat, but do it in a way that doesn't block the PC's intended other action.

Interesting. So "nothing" is a valid response to the "what do you do" question, with whatever consequences naturally flowing out of inaction?

Do you as GM clearly articulate specifics of consequences/results prior to the roll, or after? That is, are the players expected to know the exact outcome of a failed (or successful) action or just its potential severity?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Interesting. So "nothing" is a valid response to the "what do you do" question, with whatever consequences naturally flowing out of inaction?

Do you as GM clearly articulate specifics of consequences/results prior to the roll, or after? That is, are the players expected to know the exact outcome of a failed (or successful) action or just its potential severity?

If a player at my table said, "I do nothing," I stop and we'd need to have a discussion about what it is we're playing. That or I'd need to look at what I just pitched, because maybe I didn't provide anything? Anyway, that should be an exceptionally weird answer to "what do you do" in FitD or PbtA.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

Side question that I probably shouldn't ask but I will: so what is the difference between FitD and PbtA (which i also don't get and have bounced off of). like, is Dungeon World just BitD in D&D trope land?

Only thing I’d add to @Ovinomancer ’s response is that most FitD is a touch closer to many trad games, insofar as there are more stat- or skill-like things to roll than in most PbtA games.

Also most FitD games have a layer of progression that’s about the entire group. That was one of BitD’s big innovations—the idea of a character sheet for the group, in addition to ones for each PC. In BitD and Copperhead County it’s the crew sheet, in Scum and Villainy it’s your ship sheet, etc. FitD has more total buttons and toggles and mechanical bits and bobs, even compared to a pretty complex PbtA game, like Monster of the Week.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Right, nothing I said disputed that. The generation is very light prep. It's meant to be thematic, but it doesn't turn missions in prepped adventures, it just provides some structure

Well, you said the below:

Yup, the GM isn't preparing missions. The Commander lays out the mission they want (Assault, Supply, etc) and it goes from there. This happens at the table, so the concept of prepped missions or the GM presenting missions in a trad sense isn't present. The players tell the GM what they want to do and the GM complicates that.

I think this is a little confusing because the GM is indeed preparing missions. The Commander does not lay out the mission they want. The GM presents two to three missions, such as Assault, Supply, etc. and the Commander selects from those.

So in that sense, I can see why your comment may seem confusing to someone who has only read the book and not played any FitD games previously.

So, between session mission prep may be the suggested session structure, but that's more convenience because there's really not much to prep. The thematic constraints come at the overall structure level, not the prep of the missions.

But this I absolutely agree with and I think it’s the important part of it. “Preparing” here is to maybe make the rolls ahead of time so that you’re not doing it all at the table, and so you have some collection of elements to give some thought to before play. You can think of the kinds of obstacles that may be relevant for a mission, or the kinds of consequences that may suit.

But you’re absolutely not “preparing a module” as we tend to think of prepared material for many games.

I think this is a good example of how it appears your perspective on FitD games is a little different than some others in the thread. That's not saying that I don't appreciate your input for perspective, just that it can be a little jarring compared to some things @hawkeyefan and @Grendel_Khan have said.

I don’t disagree with what @Ovinomancer has been saying throughout the thread, except for the clarifying bit above.

I will say that although FitD does provide a very specific process for play, and that’s what you should strive for because that’s whatthe games are designed for, I will say that until a GM and players are used to these differences from more mainstream games like D&D, it’s okay to ease into them rather than to try to get them all right the very first time.

In my first two or three sessions of Blades in the Dark I absolutely presented Scores to the players. It let them get their feet under them with the mechanics and general approach, and then we incorporated the more player driven elements like choosing scores and going after claims and so on.

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.

It’s got some more traditional elements, but it’s still very player driven. Yes, there are constraints, but a lot of them are on the GM.

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?

You’d establish the stakes before the roll, typically. Something like “This guy seems jumpy, like his adrenaline’s already hit, and he’s ready for a fight. His hand’s on his sword. You can try and Sway him, but it’ll be tough. Position’s Desperate, with Standard Effect. The risk here is he draws his weapon.”

Something like that. Depending on the roll, you then follow through. How the players deal with things from there depends on the consequence you inflict, and if it’s resisted and so on.

but I think it is more "it is still emergent and improvisational, but it inherently makes sense in the fictional context because of the way it is framed." Is that right-ish?

Yes. Fiction first just means that whatever you do mechanically has to make sense in the fiction. So things must progress logically from what’s already been established.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Well, you said the below:



I think this is a little confusing because the GM is indeed preparing missions. The Commander does not lay out the mission they want. The GM presents two to three missions, such as Assault, Supply, etc. and the Commander selects from those.

So in that sense, I can see why your comment may seem confusing to someone who has only read the book and not played any FitD games previously.



But this I absolutely agree with and I think it’s the important part of it. “Preparing” here is to maybe make the rolls ahead of time so that you’re not doing it all at the table, and so you have some collection of elements to give some thought to before play. You can think of the kinds of obstacles that may be relevant for a mission, or the kinds of consequences that may suit.

But you’re absolutely not “preparing a module” as we tend to think of prepared material for many games.



I don’t disagree with what @Ovinomancer has been saying throughout the thread, except for the clarifying bit above.

I will say that although FitD does provide a very specific process for play, and that’s what you should strive for because that’s whatthe games are designed for, I will say that until a GM and players are used to these differences from more mainstream games like D&D, it’s okay to ease into them rather than to try to get them all right the very first time.

In my first two or three sessions of Blades in the Dark I absolutely presented Scores to the players. It let them get their feet under them with the mechanics and general approach, and then we incorporated the more player driven elements like choosing scores and going after claims and so on.



It’s got some more traditional elements, but it’s still very player driven. Yes, there are constraints, but a lot of them are on the GM.




You’d establish the stakes before the roll, typically. Something like “This guy seems jumpy, like his adrenaline’s already hit, and he’s ready for a fight. His hand’s on his sword. You can try and Sway him, but it’ll be tough. Position’s Desperate, with Standard Effect. The risk here is he draws his weapon.”

Something like that. Depending on the roll, you then follow through. How the players deal with things from there depends on the consequence you inflict, and if it’s resisted and so on.



Yes. Fiction first just means that whatever you do mechanically has to make sense in the fiction. So things must progress logically from what’s already been established.

It seems I misrecalled that the tables can generate non-focus mission types. One of the inputs is focused mission type from the Commander, and, as I recall, that has an effect on missions generated, but maybe it's not the guarantee I recall? Just additional weight? Still, the GM isn't generating missions until after the commander chooses a mission focus, right?