Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 7177773" data-attributes="member: 6696971">No problem mate <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />  I'm going to work my way backward on this one if that's alright.Awesome, thanks for bringing up Flashbacks (I was going to bring them up soon enough, but this is a perfect spot here).For folks reading along, Blades doesn't distinguish between Actions taken in the present and a quick interlude that looks back in time at a moment that directly influences the present situation.  Now influences is the key word here.  It can't cancel out or fundamentally change the nature of a Complication or something happening in the fiction, but, assuming things go right in the Action roll, something the PCs did in the past will help them deal with the situation now.So,  @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=99817" target="_blank">chaochou</a> isn't compelled at the table to buy-in to his players move here.  So the Hound player proposes a Flashback:  Hound:  "I come out of a secret door in an alley-way as Scarecrow is sprinting toward me (he was a younger man then, but we both recognize each other well enough now).  He loudly whispers 'Bluecoats'!  I bang on the fence that he was about to climb a few times and then say 'this way'.  We tuck into the secret door, shut the latch and stoop sprint down the tunnel.  When it empties out, he tries to reimburse me with a half-eaten stale sandwich.  I say 'nah...you'll get me back one day' and we go our separate ways.'  Back in the present we lock eyes and recall instantly.  I say 'this is your one day'.  I don't menace him with the pistols, but I show them they're there."So GM chaochou now figures out (a) a Stress cost for the PC (0, 1, or 2) and (b) if an Action or Fortune roll is required to determine how that goes.Yup, I gotcha.  On this, I'm going to use Blades text to convey my thoughts to folks who are thinking of running Blades or any other Story Now game with conflict resolution mechanics in which the zoom can go from tightly focused and granular to very broad and abstract:1)  (Blades p 196) "Zoom the action in and out. We resolve uncertain and challenging situations with the roll of the dice. But what should the scope of these rolls be? Do we resolve the whole fight in one roll, or do we zoom in to each exchange of blows? By design, the game is fairly flexible on this point. Sometimes you’ll want to resolve a lot of action with one roll and sometimes you’ll want to get down to very small moments of action. Think of it like a dial that the group can turn during play to zoom the focus in and out from the broad to the specific."This should be explicit.  Talk to the table about it as its happening.  They'll let you know the best way to proceed in the moment.2)  (Blades p 198) "Don’t say no. There’s almost always a better answer than “no” or “you can’t do that.” Offer a Devil’s Bargain!" Notice how  @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=99817" target="_blank">chaochou</a> didn't just say "no".  He proposed a Flashback (which of course has cost or risk).  That is fundamentally proper GMing these sorts of games.3)  (Blades p 198) Don’t hold back on what they earn. If they get into position, make the roll, and have their effect, they get what they earned."So, in this situation, 1-3 would be my concern for burgeoning GMs who want to play Blades or other games like this.  If the players think that we're eliding some of the action scene with the Slide's Command Action/resolution exclusively doing the heavy lifting to determine the outcome of the Scarecrow/gang members showdown...then we go with a Command > Fortune, we're messing with 1 and 3 in their eyes. In such a case, they're surely to go <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/worried.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":-S" title="Uhm    :-S" data-shortname=":-S" /> because they were expecting the 6 on their Limited Effect Command to partially defeat the obstacle or change the situation advantageously.  In which case they're expecting the fiction to (positively) move forward to the next player Action phase where they attempt to deal with whatever is left of that obstacle due to the Limited Effect or to the next obstacle between them and the noblewoman's daughter.  Instead, we're going with a Fortune roll before the players declare their next action.  Should that Fortune roll go poorly and things escalate, they're now in the middle of handling a growing problem that they had perceived as "half-defeated" or "de-escalated" (eg "back to square one"...or worse).  Even if the game/board-state won't have adversely changed (eg the Clock they're working against won't have ticked and/or their Position won't have gone from Risky to Desperate), the fiction (when they are able to next make a "move") won't have progressed positively/moved forward.  If the game/board-state also adversely changes as a result of the Fortune roll (again, Clock-ticking or adverse Position), then the (real life) table-state also becomes adversarial.So I would just say to new Blades GMs (and really, any GMs in Story Now systems), always make the level of zoom and what the action is resolving transparent in play.  In Blades, this should come out pretty trivially in the basic conversation at the table and Action Goal + the mechanics of Position, and Effect.  In chaochou[/menton] 's game, the table conversation surrounding the Slide PCs Command effort (and the Hound's Set Up/Assist that turns into a Flashback) would suss all of this out and it wouldn't be a problem.  It would be clear up front what Command is handling and then that we're consulting a Fortune roll for the NPC interaction.  I bring this up because I know 1-3 are definitely pitfalls for even long term GMs (especially those who don't have much exposure to these sorts of games).[HR][/HR]That all sound good?  Where do you want to go from here?Any interested parties have any questions?Interestingly, my guess is that if D&D 4e GMs would run Blades (with competing Progress Clocks, Position/Effect), they would be better at understanding, conceiving and running Skill Challenges.  Further still, my guess is that if D&D 4e wasn't killed dead and they could iterate Skill Challenges again, Blades tech could enhance the mechanical/mental overhead experience.</blockquote>

Verification