Blades in the Dark Gets First Official Expansion

The popular heist-themed RPG Blades in the Dark has gotten an official expansion courtesy of creator John Harper. Blades in the Dark: Deep Cuts is a new expansion that adds new factions, new mechanics, and new background options for the fantasy RPG. This marks the first official Harper-made expansion for Blades in the Dark since the game was originally published back in 2017.

Deep Cuts is split into two parts, with the first adding new setting options to the game, including 27 factions, 100 heritage and background options, and 13 new innovations in technology. The second part adds six new modular rules systems, including new Harm & Trauma rules, modified Advancement rules, and a new action system.

Blades in the Dark is themed around players running a crew of Scoundrels pulling off various heists and jobs. The system uses a pool-based dice system to resolve checks, with clocks pushing forward to signify various complications and deadlines arising during heists. In addition to player advancement, the players' "crew" also advances over time, adding more options during downtime and more resources to use.

Blades in the Dark also spawned the Forged in the Dark game system, which has become a mainstay for indie RPG games. Critical Role's Candela Obscura is also heavily influenced by Blades in the Dark.

 

[Xamnam]

When I ran this, my first session, I handed out harm...not freely, but as it felt justified, and quickly realized just how debilitating even minor harm could become and stack. The new rules for that alone definitely are sparking my enthusiasm to get that group back together.

 

[SteveC]

I picked this up a couple of days ago. There is a lot of stuff here. Changes to pretty much all the core mechanics. I'm seriously going to have to give it some thought. I have only run a Scum and Villainy game but have played a fair bit of Blades, so I think I can get a good handle on things. I would strongly recommend looking at it but I'm not sure yet on if I like everything.

 

[roguish]

I haven't played any of it, and I can't comment on the mechanics, but the flavour is SPECTACULAR. The industrial advancement, the union politics, the hulls breaking free, I love all of this.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It’s definitely interesting, with lots of alternate rules and supplemental material. I don’t expect I’ll use all of it, but there are definitely bits I’ll use.

 

[Elvish Lore]

If anyone is curious...

John Harper kind of changed the DNA of Blades in the Dark and it amounts to a '2e' version of the game but he doesn't call it that.

Deep Cuts was published over the weekend and it adds a bunch of lore to the game and tinkers with a bunch of system rules but the biggest deal is that is alters how players of the game think of conflict.

Basically, in original-BitD, PCs made Action Rolls which, based on the GM establishing position and effect (in turn strongly influenced by player action), let the player know if they will succeed or not and what kind of consequences (suggested by a chart) they might have to deal with depending on the roll. (reminder: single highest result in a d6 dice pool is what you're looking for).

Now, Action Roll has been replaced by the Threat Roll. The game assumes success and is now looking to see if the player's roll is sufficient to deal with any Threats that the GM has already made clear. You roll 1d for each dot in the Action (your skills/capabilities) you're using, then look for highest. If you're facing multiple threats, add 1d to your pool for every additional threat then assign a die result to each one.

Ex from the book:

Oskarr Skurlock is dragging a vengeful ghost into a spirit bottle
with his lightning hook. The GM describes two threats:

- Electroplasmic energy backlash from the ghost (Harm 2) and
Spirit Warden attention (2 ticks on their Alert clock).

- Oskarr’s player rolls 4 dice: 3 for Attune and 1 more for the
additional threat — and gets 6, 4, 4, 2. He assigns the 6 to the
energy backlash threat, so he avoids it. He assigns a 4 to the Spirit
Wardens threat, so he suffers a reduced consequence (1 tick on
the clock) or may push himself to avoid it entirely.

You can assign a Fail Threat but that's a rarer and special thing. The default in the game is that your scoundrel is a bad-ass and able to succeed in the vast majority of time. When you roll, it's a not a matter of whether or not you'll succeed.

Any threats that are NOT dealt with result in effects and consequences that are organized into 4 levels of impact - ranging from limited to extreme. These include all sorts of things... everything from harm, to progress clock ticks, to narrative developments. (Push rules exist where you are simply trading in stress for an appropriate Attribute roll to avoid or reduce associated Stress)

This has got a lot of long-term players going whoa... because it leaves behind the Simulatoinist vibe of the Action Roll for a more narrative approach (you'll succeed, you just have to avoid/deal with consequences and effects).

There's also more Fate-language in the conflict rules with Harm levels and Trauma conditions able to be invoked by the GM for narrative effect.

And, to some degree, the 'hard move' that GMs made in Apocalypse World-engine games on a 6 or less has been added back into Blades now. There's more permission for GMs to do narrative fuckery when the players roll poorly.

The other big thing Harper changed is that advancement is way slowed down so PCs won't get nearly so super-good at avoiding bad-stuff so fast. He's mentioned that he's codifying best practices from ten years of game play into this new supplement so perhaps he was seeing too often how players were able to have decent dice pools (and thus getting better highest single die results) too quickly.. where people wanted campaigns to last longer and still maintain dramatic tension with dice rolling.

There's a bunch of stuff in this new supplement and it's worth your money if you're into Blades. Hope my post lends some degree of clarity for you.

 

[Joshua Randall]

Elvish Lore - thanks for the detail. This went from a buy sight-unseen for me to “dafuq?!”

The changes to Action Rolls / Threats are… umm isn’t that a different game, now?

“Advancement is way slowed down” — am I playing the same game as everyone else? I find by-the-book advancement almost painfully slow.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Elvish Lore - thanks for the detail. This went from a buy sight-unseen for me to “dafuq?!”

The changes to Action Rolls / Threats are… umm isn’t that a different game, now?

“Advancement is way slowed down” — am I playing the same game as everyone else? I find by-the-book advancement almost painfully slow.

I’ve found that advancement can be faster than I’d like, depending on the circumstances. Most players hit most of the XP triggers at least once. Plus, the more savvy ones tend to attempt a couple of Desperate actions.

Then there’s also Downtime Training. Each Crew also begins play with a Lair Upgrade that boosts Training that’s relevant to the Crew’s specialty. So Training can really bump those numbers up.

I’ve thought about how to mitigate this somewhat myself, and I imagine I would lean on my ideas more than those in the book… but it’s good to have more options.

 

[MatthewJHanson]

Plus, the more savvy ones tend to attempt a couple of Desperate actions.

Yeah, when I played I frequently traded position effect and doing desperate action pretty frequently.

As a player I was pretty happy the pace of advancement previously.

 

[Anon Adderlan]

I'm actually surprised and somewhat confused as to why the 'Threat Roll' is getting so much pushback, as I've been running BitD and its variants like this since forever. Seems like an obvious evolution and refinement to the existing resolution system which ultimately boils down to the following:

1. Player states intent
2. GM states potential cost(s) for success
3. Roll determines whether none, one, or all outcomes are realized

In theory I like how adding Threats increases your chances of avoiding specific consequences while simultaneously decreasing your chances of avoiding all of them, which in practice makes position/effect somewhat redundant. However from experience I far prefer to have one consequence per roll, and YZE's method of making these decisions after the roll as opposed to before. I blame 7th Sea 2e, which frontloaded so many decision points per roll that it became unwieldly.

I've always considered BitD to be a bit overwrought but extremely well designed. These changes go a long way to streamlining and issues I had and hope to see them fully integrated in future FinD games. Hell if the #TombRaider RPG implements these changes I might even buy it.