Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 7977744" data-attributes="member: 6785785">Just wanted to jump in because Blades is my favorite game currently, and I think I can offer some insight.With the basic die mechanic, with success with complication on 4-5 and full success on 6, a character with only one d6 in his dice pool has a 50% chance at success. And 1d6 on a roll is generally for things the character is not particularly strong at, or has chosen not to increase his dice pool through assistance from another character, pushing himself, or accepting a devil’s bargain. So in most cases, at worst a character has a 50% chance to succeed at their stated goal. And in most cases, better chances, and always the option to increase those chances through assists or pushing or devil’s bargains. I think that success with complication being twice as likely as full success (4-5 versus 6) might be misleading in relation to your view of competency. On a 4-5 result, the character still achieves their stated goal. A complication cannot undo success. But it can add to the fiction in a way that makes things complicated in some way for the PC. So a 4-5 isn’t (or shouldn’t be) the PC somehow bumbling from a full success to a partial one. The PCs are meant to be portrayed as competent, so a GM will typically try and deacribe a complication as a consequence of circumstance or severity, rather than some kind of failing on the PC’s part. So let’s say the PC wants to leap from one rooftop, across an alley, to another rooftop. They get a 4-5. They succeed....they make the jump and the GM is bound to this. But he has to introduce a complication or setback of some kind. So maybe it’s an incredibly difficult leap, and the PC only just barely makes it, slamming into the side of the building and then scrambling up. But the impact drove the air from his lungs, so he revieves Level 1 Harm: Winded. This is just an example. There are any number of ways a GM can take it. The success with complication result is what allows for a myriad of results to the fiction to be narrated by the GM. But he’s not supposed to narrate ineffectiveness on the part of the PC on a partial success. Hell, even on a full failure he shouldn’t do that. Just as in D&D when a fighter misses an opponent with an attack, we’re meant to assume that it’s because the opponent managed to dodge or deflect the attack, not that the fighter tripped over his own feet and sent his sword skittering to the floor. Competency doesn’t mean you always succeed, just that you’re not portrayed as incompetent. Also, regarding PC actions...I can’t really think of any instance in Blades where the GM infringes on PC actions in the way you’re concerned. The GM’s major input in this area is to establish the Postion (how easy/difficult) of an action and it’s Effect (the degree of the outcome). Then the player makes the roll, and the GM narrates the outcome accordingly. The player always has a good idea of the potential outcome of any roll. I’m not sure where the idea the GM may step on player control of their character is coming from, but I don’t think that’s the case.</blockquote>

Verification