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.

 

[Joshua Randall]

Because position/effect are core parts of BITD. Take those out and it’s not BITD to many people including me.

Similarly: AC and attack rolls are core parts of D&D. There are arguably more efficient ways to get at the same results with only one roll. Cool. But that’s no longer D&D.

 

[niklinna]

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.

Heist-themed. Hm. I can recall my last Blades campaign featuring, hm, maybe one heist. Whole lotta assassinating, blowing stuff up, spreading propaganda, capturing arcane power, taking out cultists. Maybe one heist. But it was a good time, that one heist. Maybe after I move I will have a chance to look into doing Blades again. This expansion looks interesting, but like somebody else said, it feels like there could have been a 2nd edition instead.

 

[MacDhomnuill]

This fixes most of my major complaints about the 1e version of blades, I especially like the switch to success as a default rather than failure with the threat roll. I think Harper might have read or played some into the odd, maybe we should call this blades in the odd. I still have a horrible aversion to playbooks but I can see playing this new version to see if I like it better than the original.

 

[Anon Adderlan]

The biggest problem with Threat Rolls is that it applies a 3 state system to handle multi-state results, which ends up making things more complicated than they need to be, which is why I suspect Harper's next game engine will move away from it.

Because position/effect are core parts of BITD. Take those out and it’s not BITD to many people including me.

Which is probably why it was released as a set of optional additions as opposed to a new edition.

I've also concluded that the discussions required to establish position/effect lie at the heart of why BitD feels like a 'writer's room' rather than an immersive RPG, but if that's your thing then this is one of the best games for it.

This fixes most of my major complaints about the 1e version of blades, I especially like the switch to success as a default rather than failure with the threat roll. I think Harper might have read or played some into the odd, maybe we should call this blades in the odd.

While the flaws made it ultimately unplayable for me, this concept was the very foundation of 7th Sea 2e, where rolls do not determine success (even though they sorta do) but which consequences you avoid and opportunities you create.

 

[RenleyRenfield]

The biggest problem with Threat Rolls is that it applies a 3 state system to handle multi-state results, which ends up making things more complicated than they need to be, which is why I suspect Harper's next game engine will move away from it.

So.... Then we are all in agreement that eventually the move will go back to "Act Under Pressure" and just be a "MC move / Success with Complications / Success" result.... so eventually FitD goes back to PBTA...

on a less silly note, we are running Deep Cuts and finding the changes are better, but still feel like they are not fully enough....

This is what we use in my Star Wars PBTA game (link here its free) , and with the "tags" it seems to do everything the three stage FitD or one roll Threat does....

ACT UNDER PRESSURE

10+	You do it, no problem
7-9	You do it, but you stumble, hesitate, or flinch; Gain a [stress], and then choose 1: ☙ A related [condition] ☙ An ugly [complication] ☙ Take 2 Harm

Side Note: I have a Werewolf: the Hunted FitD game I made coming up. But I won't post it until after we find out how we want to alter the old FitD rules with Deep Cuts, if any, if more, etc etc...

 

[Joshua Randall]

Life is analog but games are of their nature not analog. Games can be binary (D&D attack rolls: you hit or you miss), trinary, quarternary (Fate: fail / tie / succeed / with style), etc. and I’m out of these types of words I know without looking them up, anyway.

But. No game mechanic can be analog. No, not even computer games, because no matter how minutely you slice the thermometer, it’s still discrete units.

So I don’t have a problem with BITD using a 3 state system to represent a multi-state world. That’s all games, for different values of ‘3’ and ‘multi’.

 

[zakael19]

Because position/effect are core parts of BITD. Take those out and it’s not BITD to many people including me.

Similarly: AC and attack rolls are core parts of D&D. There are arguably more efficient ways to get at the same results with only one roll. Cool. But that’s no longer D&D.

Position / effect are still there, but adjusted. You're assumed to always be at risky/standard unless something is going more sideways for a reason (outnumbered, something's higher tier is specifically relevant to the course of action, you're dealing with fallout from something else). Controlled is gone, the Devil's Bargain reframe is there to be deployed as "pay a cost and do the thing" instead. You can still get increased effect, and there's a table there to give fictional ideas of what "four levels" of effect look like apart from numerical clocks/harm (eg: alerted -> pursued -> cornered -> captured is one of the ideas iirc).

I'm looking forward to trying it out, the flow "clicks" to my PBTA brain better - and by just assuming things are risky/standard unless modified and then foregrounding consequences, you should significantly streamline play (and potentially feel a bit more narrative as noted above).

 

[Joshua Randall]

But you already assumed Risky/Standard. I am not seeing the improvement here.

Whatever! Enjoy the game. It doesn’t appeal to me.

 

[Anon Adderlan]

The other problem with Threat Rolls is that the consequences of partial results are still determined after a roll, which is exactly what this procedure is trying to avoid.

So.... Then we are all in agreement that eventually the move will go back to "Act Under Pressure" and just be a "MC move / Success with Complications / Success" result.... so eventually FitD goes back to PBTA...

Or the other direction.

on a less silly note, we are running Deep Cuts and finding the changes are better, but still feel like they are not fully enough....

This is what we use in my Star Wars PBTA game (link here its free) , and with the "tags" it seems to do everything the three stage FitD or one roll Threat does....

Except for presenting the consequences prior to the roll.

Life is analog but games are of their nature not analog. Games can be binary (D&D attack rolls: you hit or you miss), trinary, quarternary (Fate: fail / tie / succeed / with style), etc. and I’m out of these types of words I know without looking them up, anyway.

But. No game mechanic can be analog. No, not even computer games, because no matter how minutely you slice the thermometer, it’s still discrete units.

Agree completely.

So I don’t have a problem with BITD using a 3 state system to represent a multi-state world. That’s all games, for different values of ‘3’ and ‘multi’.

But it's not representing a multi-state world, it's representing a discrete set of risks. That's the entire point.

 

[zakael19]

The other problem with Threat Rolls is that the consequences of partial results are still determined after a roll, which is exactly what this procedure is trying to avoid.

I'm not sure if this was replying to me or not, but I had a little exchange on Reddit today about this (working out partial successes/consequences on the fly) actually - because IMO the Threat Roll contextualization makes it super simple. You've established badness, on a 1-3 the badness happens (barring a resist, which likely moves it down to a 4-5/partial); on a 4-5, you go down one rung in outcome. The table of effects/consequences helped me mentally map out what that can mean, and then for obvious threats you've established like Harm / Clocks going from Risky (L2) to L1/1 tick is right there and you just narrate it out.

In my play last night getting a good session in, it made adjudicating 4/5 results a non-issue.