Help me "get" Forged in the Dark.

[Grendel_Khan]

Just so I understand:

Using The Mandalorian episode "The prisoner" as an example, the GM would set/roll up the scenario (recover a prisoner for a transport) and the players would decide on their approach and detail (cut their way in and skulk) and the engagement roll would define their starting position (in this case, they were good at first) but aside from that nothing is defined?

Yes. Just to clarify, the engagement roll can let you hard-frame the PCs into a specific moment during the job—they're inside, outside the cell, and a security droid shows up or an alarm is tripped.

Did the GM define that the ship was crewed by droids, or was that established during play? The layout of the place, the kinds of security, and all of that is based on the results of rolls and the conversation?

You could establish the droid crew ahead of time, as something the PCs learn when getting or researching the job. Could maybe do the same for layout, possibly making one or both of those details part of the engagement roll result. But the emphasis is on what the characters know, rather than what you've established for yourself, and then hidden, to be revealed during play. Most of the game world doesn't really exist until they encounter it. I know that sounds like a lot of RPGs, but again, it's a matter of degree. If you've set up a ship's deck plans and are using that to guide the players—so you know how many doors they have to get through, and/or how many potential enemies are behind those doors. Ideally you define things as loosely as possible, so that with a rolled consequence or proposed Devil's Bargain you can say that actually there are humans overseeing the droid crew, and that they use the droids because the ship is a transport or storage vessel for powerful Sith artifacts that tend to influence nearby living things, and the prisoner is being used as a test subject to see what prolonged exposure does. Or on a later miss, once that stuff has been established in the moment, you might say the prisoner is there voluntarily, trying to marinate in the dark side, and they're hostile to your breakout attempt.

I don't think there's a concrete sense of how much or how little to prep, though.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yes. Just to clarify, the engagement roll can let you hard-frame the PCs into a specific moment during the job—they're inside, outside the cell, and a security droid shows up or an alarm is tripped.



You could establish the droid crew ahead of time, as something the PCs learn when getting or researching the job. Could maybe do the same for layout, possibly making one or both of those details part of the engagement roll result. But the emphasis is on what the characters know, rather than what you've established for yourself, and then hidden, to be revealed during play. Most of the game world doesn't really exist until they encounter it. I know that sounds like a lot of RPGs, but again, it's a matter of degree. If you've set up a ship's deck plans and are using that to guide the players—so you know how many doors they have to get through, and/or how many potential enemies are behind those doors. Ideally you define things as loosely as possible, so that with a rolled consequence or proposed Devil's Bargain you can say that actually there are humans overseeing the droid crew, and that they use the droids because the ship is a transport or storage vessel for powerful Sith artifacts that tend to influence nearby living things, and the prisoner is being used as a test subject to see what prolonged exposure does. Or on a later miss, once that stuff has been established in the moment, you might say the prisoner is there voluntarily, trying to marinate in the dark side, and they're hostile to your breakout attempt.

I don't think there's a concrete sense of how much or how little to prep, though.

Any "prep" is done through play, like with the info gathering/free play loop. This is where details can be established about the job. Discussing how the free play section of the loop works is helpful and often gets neglected. Here you aren't making moves in the sense of leveling consequences, but rather fortune checks (I'd use skill rating for these) and giving information out accordingly. Here, 1-3 would be bad news, 4-5 would be revealing both useful intel and a challenge in the mission, and 6+ useful info -- an extra opportunity, leverage, vulnerability, etc.

 

[Reynard]

Any "prep" is done through play, like with the info gathering/free play loop. This is where details can be established about the job. Discussing how the free play section of the loop works is helpful and often gets neglected. Here you aren't making moves in the sense of leveling consequences, but rather fortune checks (I'd use skill rating for these) and giving information out accordingly. Here, 1-3 would be bad news, 4-5 would be revealing both useful intel and a challenge in the mission, and 6+ useful info -- an extra opportunity, leverage, vulnerability, etc.

So, say the PCs are gathering info and ask about the layout. Does a bad (1-3) result in false information, or a layout that is troublesome and makes things harder for the PCs?

Related: as I understand it, this is something that can also be done during a flashback?

 

[Fenris-77]

I would probably default to less or no information over false information, generally speaking. You can still throw additional obstacles (to represent that missing info) in the way as consequences, complications, and whatnot in play. You could also have that lack of solid intel affect the engagement roll if that made more sense. It works both ways.

 

[Fenris-77]

Related: as I understand it, this is something that can also be done during a flashback?

Flashbacks are a good tool to help the players overcome unforeseen circumstances in play, for sure. The worse the engagement roll is, essentially how badly do things start in media res, the more likely it will be that the players will have to start burning stress earlier in the score to use the flashback mechanic.

 

[MarkB]

So, say the PCs are gathering info and ask about the layout. Does a bad (1-3) result in false information, or a layout that is troublesome and makes things harder for the PCs?

I'd treat gathering information as being somewhat similar to the Acquire an Asset downtime action. You're not in any danger, so there's no real pass/fail here - instead, the check determines the quality of information provided.

1-3: You get the publicly-available blueprints for a standard production-line vessel of this class. It probably doesn't match the internals of this one, but you at least know structural information like the locations of bulkheads, power conduits and airlocks.
4-5: You get the basic layout of this specific ship, and some minor detail on security measures.
6: You get the full layout, significant security info, and can specify some specific area on which to gain additional detail.
Double 6: As above, but you also have a reliable means to deal with at least one security or access system on the ship.

Related: as I understand it, this is something that can also be done during a flashback?

Yes, but flashbacks are generally more for overcoming an unexpected obstacle by having the players retroactively declare it to not have been unexpected. So if they get into the ship, come to a T-junction and realise that they've no idea which way the brig is, then yes, they could flashback to having obtained detailed plans.

 

[Reynard]

Yes, but flashbacks are generally more for overcoming an unexpected obstacle by having the players retroactively declare it to not have been unexpected. So if they get into the ship, come to a T-junction and realise that they've no idea which way the brig is, then yes, they could flashback to having obtained detailed plans.

What does that look like mechanically? Some sort of searching the chip check that goes against the clock that has a bad result and then trying to use a flashback to mitigate the "damage" like a resistance?

 

[Fenris-77]

What does that look like mechanically? Some sort of searching the chip check that goes against the clock that has a bad result and then trying to use a flashback to mitigate the "damage" like a resistance?

No, not generally. It's less involved than that. So the PCs come to an unexpected obstacle (locked door, T-junction, attack squids, whatever). They can then spend stress to flashback for a 'thing' to help them overcome the obstacle. The cost of the flashback (notionally) depends of the size of the player ask (usually between 0 and 2 Stress).

Once you get to resistance you've gone past where the flashback will help. You could use a flashback to try and obviate a consequence once established, but the resistance roll would happen before that. At least I'm pretty sure you can't use a flashback as an interrupt mid-roll. I've never had that come up.

 

[pemerton]

The "purest" play loop for Scum and Villainy, as far as I can tell, is for players to decide on a type of score, and then the GM reacts. There are tables in the back to help roll up something, but those are definitely optional.

<snip>

You're still doing a certain amount of prep, insofar as figuring out what the different factions are doing as the campaign progresses, but the prep doesn't need to (and really shouldn't) include sketching out full adventures and setpieces and triggers. My prep is more about coming up with tons and tons of NPCs—just names, a couple key points, and any faction connections or context. But I don't think there's anything wrong with doing sort of a general, loose amount of prep, so that when it's time to improvise you can draw from research or ideas that seem appropriate. It's just important, I think, to approach prep as building out your box of toys, which you can whip out as needed, rather than prep as plot.

this isn't about the distinction between prepping situations vs. plots, ala the Alexandrian. It's more that you might come up with an intro scene or situation—often based solely on a couple details, in the moment, during the session—but no "if A happens, then X happens; if B, then Y." Like literally nothing past how it starts, then you flow from there. It's a matter of degree, which you can imagine being a meaningless distinction in the abstract, but once you start running it the difference is stark. The looser the framework, the better, otherwise you're more limited in your improvised consequences, and Devil's Bargains become less interesting and creative, etc.

To be more specific, the more tightly defined the situation is, the more likely you'll be to come with consequences that just resemble critical fumbles in a trad game. That's a huge and surprisingly common problem with starting out in PbtA or FitD. I've played with multiple GMs who default to fumbles without thinking, despite the fact that the rules explicitly warn against having consequences (on a partial success) negate the associated success.

You could establish the droid crew ahead of time, as something the PCs learn when getting or researching the job. Could maybe do the same for layout, possibly making one or both of those details part of the engagement roll result. But the emphasis is on what the characters know, rather than what you've established for yourself, and then hidden, to be revealed during play. Most of the game world doesn't really exist until they encounter it. I know that sounds like a lot of RPGs, but again, it's a matter of degree.

I like this series of posts. They help bring out the difference between GM prep of hidden fiction (aka "secret backstory"), and playing to find out in the PbtA sense of that phrase.

Based on my experience in trying to explain "no myth" approaches to RPGing, this is one of the biggest hurdles to overcome when trying to move from "trad" GMing to GMing systems like FitD.

 

[MarkB]

What does that look like mechanically? Some sort of searching the chip check that goes against the clock that has a bad result and then trying to use a flashback to mitigate the "damage" like a resistance?

Resistance rolls are more about going back and changing the fiction. A solid hit from a blaster bolt becomes a light graze, setting off the alarm becomes noticing the sensor at the last moment.

With a flashback, you've already accepted the consequences that led to your current setback, so the facts of the scene are established. But by using a flashback you may be able to change the context of the scene to something more favourable.

Let's say you're trying to break into a building and a clock's been filling up called "caught in the act." You fail a lockpicking check, and a patrol trooper comes around the corner. Nobody resists that (maybe the clock was so full that even a mitigated failure was going to add that last segment) so that's the situation you're facing.

And then you declare "Hey, I know this guy - it's Jeff! We met at a cantina last week while he was off duty, got to talking, I hooked him up with a supplier for some sweet contraband, so I have some dirt on him and he owes me a favour. Should be a cinch to persuade him to walk away."

That's a pretty major flashback, so at least 1 point of stress, probably 2, if the GM is willing to let it just work. Maybe mitigate it down a point if they're willing to let success depend on a Sway roll, or throw in a cash bribe.