Blades in the Dark (& hacks) - Replacing Effect Dice

[Starfox]

I had a thought in relation to Blades in the Dark, and I wonder if it has been thought over by others. The idea is to replace bonuses and penalties to effect with more or fewer dice. So if an effect would normally have great effect, it now gains +1d, and when acting against someone with higher tier, you suffer -d penalties. All results would then be read the same way.

These are my thoughts on what this would do. I'm looking for more.

• The advantage would be that you avoid the overly large die pools that can come up in campaign play.
• I also think this would be easier to explain to players, the effect system in BitD is somewhat arcane.
• It makes failures more common on more difficult tasks. BitD normally resolves this by trading position for effect, making consequences worse, but not more common.

• The first disadvantage I see is that that the GM has fewer tools to play with.
• Another is that any rules change is confusing, so this might work better i a more thorough hack than as a house rule.

 

[RenleyRenfield]

• Another is that any rules change is confusing, so this might work better i a more thorough hack than as a house rule.

This is gonna be your road-bump right here.

Changing Position and Effect from static numerical values to D6's = breaks the entire GM play system. As those Effects and Positions are the basis for Tier and and Gear and many more things that are mechanically built around that static value.

Your general idea is fine. And yes, BitD is poorly explained in its rules. But I think you are truly talking about an entire re-write of BitD rather than a simple house rule.

...

Have you played/read the FitD game Quietus? It is hands down the best FitD 'lite' system ever. And it's the best one to build ideas from as it already did the heavy lifting of taking out the GM rules and making them into a simple doom mechanic.

 

[Starfox]

I might try this out on my Princess Kingdoms game - its already quite a bit different from BitD canon.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I had a thought in relation to Blades in the Dark, and I wonder if it has been thought over by others. The idea is to replace bonuses and penalties to effect with more or fewer dice. So if an effect would normally have great effect, it now gains +1d, and when acting against someone with higher tier, you suffer -d penalties. All results would then be read the same way.

My question would be then how is effect determined? How do you know if someone succeeded with Great Effect or with Limited Effect?

I’m a little unclear on what you’re suggesting. Is it something like the below?

• Great Effect = +1D to the roll
• Standard Effect = no change
• Limited Effect = -1D to roll

Is that correct? If so, I’m not sire what this accomplishes as you still need to determine the Effect. It’s just now instead of the Effect being about the quality of the outcome, it’ll now change the chance for success?

Is that what you want?

These are my thoughts on what this would do. I'm looking for more.

• The advantage would be that you avoid the overly large die pools that can come up in campaign play.

Wouldn’t this increase the dice pool by +1 in some instances? And -1 in others? Is that really a significant change?

This would actually make it possible to roll 1 more die on an action roll than is currently possible per the rules.

• I also think this would be easier to explain to players, the effect system in BitD is somewhat arcane.

I think it’s one of the elements of the game that tales the most time for folks new to the game to grasp, but I don’t think it’s so bad that it should be removed. In fact, I think it’s one of the strengths of the game.

John Harper has put out some really solid play guides and also videos that can help with some of the trickier parts of BitD. Here’s a link to one about updated play references.

GM Guidance for Blades

• It makes failures more common on more difficult tasks. BitD normally resolves this by trading position for effect, making consequences worse, but not more common.

Well, a Difficult task would probably have a Desperate Position. So that means the consequences on a failure will be greater.

If it was also Limited Effect, then yes, you’ve made it harder to succeed by subtracting a die. But you’ve made it easier to achieve full success by removing Effect entirely.

• The first disadvantage I see is that that the GM has fewer tools to play with.

Yeah, you’re essentially taking two different things… the difficulty of a task and the scope of success… and making them one thing, and then not replacing the second thing.

• Another is that any rules change is confusing, so this might work better i a more thorough hack than as a house rule.

I think it’s something that could be possible if the goal is to make the game simpler. But I think it would be something that would indeed need to be part of a more significant revision.

 

[Starfox]

My question would be then how is effect determined? How do you know if someone succeeded with Great Effect or with Limited Effect?

I’m a little unclear on what you’re suggesting. Is it something like the below?

• Great Effect = +1D to the roll
• Standard Effect = no change
• Limited Effect = -1D to roll

Is that correct? If so, I’m not sire what this accomplishes as you still need to determine the Effect. It’s just now instead of the Effect being about the quality of the outcome, it’ll now change the chance for success?

Is that what you want?



Wouldn’t this increase the dice pool by +1 in some instances? And -1 in others? Is that really a significant change?

This would actually make it possible to roll 1 more die on an action roll than is currently possible per the rules.



I think it’s one of the elements of the game that tales the most time for folks new to the game to grasp, but I don’t think it’s so bad that it should be removed. In fact, I think it’s one of the strengths of the game.

John Harper has put out some really solid play guides and also videos that can help with some of the trickier parts of BitD. Here’s a link to one about updated play references.

GM Guidance for Blades



Well, a Difficult task would probably have a Desperate Position. So that means the consequences on a failure will be greater.

If it was also Limited Effect, then yes, you’ve made it harder to succeed by subtracting a die. But you’ve made it easier to achieve full success by removing Effect entirely.



Yeah, you’re essentially taking two different things… the difficulty of a task and the scope of success… and making them one thing, and then not replacing the second thing.



I think it’s something that could be possible if the goal is to make the game simpler. But I think it would be something that would indeed need to be part of a more significant revision.

Thanks for the reply. Yes to all your questions/assumptions. I've been playing BitD and Princess World - Frontier Kingdoms to the point where I think I grok the mechanics and are considering hacking them. I do understand how demanding a certain effect for a desired result during the negotiations phase of a roll does make the situation more volatile - players almost always begin this by trading position for effect.

My idea here is to keep position as it is, including the ability to trade position for effect. I'd change effect to instead add/subtract dice. Every roll would then have standard effect, but a variable number of dice to achieve that effect with. Pushing, assisting, setting up, situation modifiers, tier, all of these would change the number of dice you roll.

Aside from the question if this is a good idea at all, the greatest mechanical issue I see is from Princess World. In that game, you can "escalate", which adds effect at the cost of increasing the size of the dice. For +1 effect you roll d8s, for +2 effect you roll d10s, and so on up to d20. This represents the super-dramatic beyond what you can normally do effects of anime, but would not work in my proposed system as trading an additional die for changing all your dice to d8s would not really be a good idea, it would be a statistical/mathematical operation.

Another problem which is not strictly mechanical is when the negotiation phase is short and incomplete, which often happens when players are eager. Normally a player can roll and then negotiate after the roll. Not ideal, but it works. This would not work with a die pool that changes, you MUST have the negotiation before rolling - which is actually quite a disadvantage in my mind.

What this thread is about is basically "holding up a finger to gauge the wind" to see what problems I should anticipate before even testing this.

 

[hawkeyefan]

@Starfox

Two thoughts after reading that. Or, rather, one thought and one question.

First, if trading position for effect is something that the players almost always do, then you might not be pushing hard enough on consequences for Desperate or Riaky actions. Trading Position for Effect should have a pretty significant risk. My reading of what you shared gives me the sense that may not be the case. So… something to think about.

I am totally unfamiliar with Princess World. How do these dice changes work? Is it still fail on 1-3, success with consequence on 4-5, and then full success on 6+? Or does something different happen?

 

[Starfox]

@Starfox Two thoughts after reading that. Or, rather, one thought and one question. First, if trading position for effect is something that the players almost always do, then you might not be pushing hard enough on consequences for Desperate or Riaky actions. Trading Position for Effect should have a pretty significant risk. My reading of what you shared gives me the sense that may not be the case. So… something to think about.

This happens, and we sometimes pay for the attempt. This usually happens when rolling lots of dice, so the chance of a 6 are great. This is especially true when making group checks, which especially happens on a stealthy approach which we commonly use. Its really only Harm that are a danger, as other consequences can be resisted.And even against Harm, a combination f armor and resistance reduces Harm to level 1, which it tolerable. I am considering reducing the effect of resisting non-Harm consequences in a desperate situation. I think this writing of the rules is deliberate, the rules are written to encourage players to go for desperate position.

@StarfoxI am totally unfamiliar with Princess World. How do these dice changes work? Is it still fail on 1-3, success with consequence on 4-5, and then full success on 6+? Or does something different happen?

On any die, you have 2 results that are opposed success and one result (the maximum) that is a full success. So on a d8, 1-5 is a fial, 6-7 is opposed success, and 8 is a full success. On a d12, 1-9 is a fail, 10-11 is opposed, 12 is full. On the d20, you have 3 results of opposed success, so it is 1-16 fail, 17-19 opposed, 20 full.

Additionally, die pools in Princess World are usually greater, you have a specialty that gives you an additional die, and the xp system is generous so you advance faster. So this is not quite as dangerous as it sounds.

 

[MarkB]

I don't see how this change achieves your stated goals. If, as you say, players in your games are always trading position for effect, this change will by no means discourage that. So now your players are always trading position for extra dice, and rolling as many or more dice, not fewer.

More than that, by increasing their dice pool, they decrease the likelihood of a failure or partial success, so while worsening their position results in potentially harsher consequences, it also lessens their chance of experiencing any consequences. In fact, with low initial dice pools, it will almost always be beneficial to trade position and effect if the initial effect is lesser and the position is not already desperate.

 

[Starfox]

I don't see how this change achieves your stated goals. If, as you say, players in your games are always trading position for effect, this change will by no means discourage that. So now your players are always trading position for extra dice, and rolling as many or more dice, not fewer.

More than that, by increasing their dice pool, they decrease the likelihood of a failure or partial success, so while worsening their position results in potentially harsher consequences, it also lessens their chance of experiencing any consequences. In fact, with low initial dice pools, it will almost always be beneficial to trade position and effect if the initial effect is lesser and the position is not already desperate.

I think this would mostly change the game when acting against higher-tier opposition, which is very common. PCs have several advantages that makes acting against higher tiers (and thus at an effect disadvantage) very doable in campaign play. Vs equal and lower tier opponents you get extra dice, which will soon make you almost sure to succeed, but singe you only get the base success of the roll, instead of effect improved by tier difference, I think this actually makes PCs weaker but safer against low-tier opponents.

Overall, I think getting or losing dice is less dramatic than gaining or losing effect, at least once you have some action values to play around with. I've been considering making each effect grade worth plus or minus 2d, but no, I think that's too much.

But this is something to look out for in a playtest, thank you for the tip.

 

[Starfox]

So, I tried this now in a Princess World game. Due to how the kingdom building works in that game, our tier 2 kingdom faced tier 0 (zero) adversaries. In ordinary BitD style, this would add two effect levels to every action, which means anything but a failure is likely to overrun the opposition. Instead, the PCs now had +2d on most actions - and the impact was much less. Sure, they were pretty secure. They are moderately experienced by now, so most actions were 5d or more. But you are not guaranteed a full success on 5d! The entire adventure became laid-back, I named it On Top of Things, and they were. There were little danger. Instead it as a session of letting the PCs enjoy the fruits of their labor while still being a good game session. So, the experiment worked out for easy things, making them more interesting. It will be exiting, and might not work as well, against more difficult challenges.

What didn't really work out and won't work ut at all in the long run is the PCs constantly being 2 tiers higher than their environment, so that rule is changing. But that has nothing to do with the ideas presented in this thread.