Help me "get" Forged in the Dark.

[Grendel_Khan]

General GMing Question: is it strongly advised to run the "starter adventure" associated with the chosen (Bands) or ship (Scum) the players choose.

I never really like starter adventures, but I particularly dislike the one in Scum and Villainy. I think it’s maybe useful to the GM to look at it, but I don’t think you should see it as a required starting point. I actually think for a first-time FitD GM it’s sometimes a better idea to start with setups/adventures that might mean a bit trad, and over time slide further into the narrative approach.

 

[Manbearcat]

I’m going to be the dissenting voice here.

I don’t think it’s a good idea to run a prepped starter adventure in a Story Now designed game where you intend to play the game in a principled, “play to find out” manner.

Jump in feet first into the deep end with everyone at the table having a clear understanding of what you’re collectively getting into. Everyone take responsibility. Everyone come into it with a sense of boldness, of creative aggressiveness, and accountability for what is about to transpire. And everyone come into it with an understanding that there will be a learning curve (individually and collectively).

But you’ll improve. And you’ll notice the improvement. And you’ll keep the meta channel open and figure out what is working and what needs work. Then it will click. And you’ll all be glad that you jumped into the deep together.

So, yeah. That’s my pitch for running the game as it’s intended. Mega light prep at most. Follow the rules. Follow the established and emerging fiction. Follow the PCs. Provoke the players (through their PCs) and put thematic, interesting obstacles in front of them. Rinse/repeat.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I’m going to be the dissenting voice here.

I don’t think it’s a good idea to run a prepped starter adventure in a Story Now designed game where you intend to play the game in a principled, “play to find out” manner.

Jump in feet first into the deep end with everyone at the table having a clear understanding of what you’re collectively getting into. Everyone take responsibility. Everyone come into it with a sense of boldness, of creative aggressiveness, and accountability for what is about to transpire. And everyone come into it with an understanding that there will be a learning curve (individually and collectively).

But you’ll improve. And you’ll notice the improvement. And you’ll keep the meta channel open and figure out what is working and what needs work. Then it will click. And you’ll all be glad that you jumped into the deep together.

So, yeah. That’s my pitch for running the game as it’s intended. Mega light prep at most. Follow the rules. Follow the established and emerging fiction. Follow the PCs. Provoke the players (through their PCs) and put thematic, interesting obstacles in front of them. Rinse/repeat.

The starters are like the lampblack/red sashes war in Blades, where Basco Baz wants your crew to do a thing. It's anodune enough that it works to kick things off, but nit at all a straight jacket. My first run used it, and the PCs decided Baz was a tool and immediately went to look for other work.

 

[Manbearcat]

The starters are like the lampblack/red sashes war in Blades, where Basco Baz wants your crew to do a thing. It's anodune enough that it works to kick things off, but nit at all a straight jacket. My first run used it, and the PCs decided Baz was a tool and immediately went to look for other work.

If it doesn’t beset play with prepackaged framing that features a measure of prescriptive decision-space or consequence-space, then that should be fine. I’ll defer to your opinion on that (as I don’t know).

But, theoretically, if it does any of that then it’s effectively a block for honing the necessary cognitive framework and skills to run and play the game as intended.

My opinion on these things is the same way I feel about any martial endeavor. Practice the fundamentals of boxing and grappling before you go live. But once you go live, keep anything resembling choreograph out of live sparring/rolling sessions because that choreograph will either develop poor neurological habits or amplify existing ones.

So if you don’t feel comfortable framing scenes, applying the rules of position/effect, coming up with compelling consequences, etc…then just practice that together outside of live play. Once you feel comfortable, go to live play.

 

[Reynard]

I’m going to be the dissenting voice here.

I don’t think it’s a good idea to run a prepped starter adventure in a Story Now designed game where you intend to play the game in a principled, “play to find out” manner.

Jump in feet first into the deep end with everyone at the table having a clear understanding of what you’re collectively getting into. Everyone take responsibility. Everyone come into it with a sense of boldness, of creative aggressiveness, and accountability for what is about to transpire. And everyone come into it with an understanding that there will be a learning curve (individually and collectively).

But you’ll improve. And you’ll notice the improvement. And you’ll keep the meta channel open and figure out what is working and what needs work. Then it will click. And you’ll all be glad that you jumped into the deep together.

So, yeah. That’s my pitch for running the game as it’s intended. Mega light prep at most. Follow the rules. Follow the established and emerging fiction. Follow the PCs. Provoke the players (through their PCs) and put thematic, interesting obstacles in front of them. Rinse/repeat.

I don't understand this perspective. I have seen nothing in the way the books describe the process of play where there is not an articulated goal (get out of the system, sell the goods, steal the top secret ship). If I understand the presentation correctly, the players say what they want to do, the GM outlines the circumstances, the players decide on their approach and the singular detail of that approach, and then an engagement roll establishes the starting position for the first scene that matters. From there, there aren't prescribed scenes or anything but the goal still exists. There is an actual win condition for every job. No?

This doesn't preclude any prep at all. It states clearly that the GM is supposed to consider how factions and connected NPCs figure into the scenario. Sure, that stuff can be done off the cuff but that doesn't mean it has to be. I feel like some folks think that you aren't playing it right if you decide on ANYTHING before the dice are rolled and I don't get that from the way the book explains things at all. The very first example of play, in fact, includes a hidden element in the setup that actively modifies the engagement roll and turns into a twist in the scene. That sounds like "prep" to me.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

I don't understand this perspective. I have seen nothing in the way the books describe the process of play where there is not an articulated goal (get out of the system, sell the goods, steal the top secret ship). If I understand the presentation correctly, the players say what they want to do, the GM outlines the circumstances, the players decide on their approach and the singular detail of that approach, and then an engagement roll establishes the starting position for the first scene that matters. From there, there aren't prescribed scenes or anything but the goal still exists. There is an actual win condition for every job. No?

This doesn't preclude any prep at all. It states clearly that the GM is supposed to consider how factions and connected NPCs figure into the scenario. Sure, that stuff can be done off the cuff but that doesn't mean it has to be. I feel like some folks think that you aren't playing it right if you decide on ANYTHING before the dice are rolled and I don't get that from the way the book explains things at all. The very first example of play, in fact, includes a hidden element in the setup that actively modifies the engagement roll and turns into a twist in the scene. That sounds like "prep" to me.

The "purest" play loop for Scum and Villainy, as far as I can tell, is for players to decide on a type of score, and then the GM reacts. There are tables in the back to help roll up something, but those are definitely optional.

But for the first session/score, the rules do advise some traditional prep, at least for the setup:


"First, create a job that characterizes the kinds of jobs that ship will tend towards. The Stardancer is a smuggling ship, and they need to get off-world with an artifact they’ve acquired without being caught. Then add some factions to the mix that underscore the kinds of groups the crew is likely to face off against. For instance, the Firedrake’s jobs are against various Hegemony factions.

The purpose of the starting situation is to start the first job with a bang. The players immediately have a goal and a direction, and they’re on an exciting job right away, instead of having to meet in a bar and talk about forming a crew. This is the pilot episode. Have fun!"


The idea from there, imo, is to move into a more fully reactive mode. You're still doing a certain amount of prep, insofar as figuring out what the different factions are doing as the campaign progresses, but the prep doesn't need to (and really shouldn't) include sketching out full adventures and setpieces and triggers. My prep is more about coming up with tons and tons of NPCs—just names, a couple key points, and any faction connections or context. But I don't think there's anything wrong with doing sort of a general, loose amount of prep, so that when it's time to improvise you can draw from research or ideas that seem appropriate. It's just important, I think, to approach prep as building out your box of toys, which you can whip out as needed, rather than prep as plot.


Btw I misremembered in an earlier post—there's no starter adventure in Scum and Villainy, just a very detailed example of play. I have a friend who used that example as a starter adventure for his group (which I thought was a pretty bad idea) so I got it twisted.

 

[Reynard]

The idea from there, imo, is to move into a more fully reactive mode. You're still doing a certain amount of prep, insofar as figuring out what the different factions are doing as the campaign progresses, but the prep doesn't need to (and really shouldn't) include sketching out full adventures and setpieces and triggers. My prep is more about coming up with tons and tons of NPCs—just names, a couple key points, and any faction connections or context. But I don't think there's anything wrong with doing sort of a general, loose amount of prep, so that when it's time to improvise you can draw from research or ideas that seem appropriate. It's just important, I think, to approach prep as building out your box of toys, which you can whip out as needed, rather than prep as plot.

This is probably one of those times when my personal definiton for a thing doesn't match up with a common definition. Unless I am doinga very directed game (like for a con) "prep" NEVER means "decide what is going to happen" for me. it is just about laying out the situation, so that I have a solid foundation off which to improv coherently.

Btw I misremembered in an earlier post—there's no starter adventure in Scum and Villainy, just a very detailed example of play. I have a friend who used that example as a starter adventure for his group (which I thought was a pretty bad idea) so I got it twisted.

There are 3 starter adventures in the book -- one for each ship. Although "adventure" is probably too strong a word. They are discrete scenarios. Weirdly, the smuggler one at least seems to suggest it should define the campaign going forward for a number of sessions. I don't think I would take that advice. S&V in particular just feels more episodic, with continuity emerging through interactions rather than some "ancient artifact plot."

 

[Grendel_Khan]

This is probably one of those times when my personal definiton for a thing doesn't match up with a common definition. Unless I am doinga very directed game (like for a con) "prep" NEVER means "decide what is going to happen" for me. it is just about laying out the situation, so that I have a solid foundation off which to improv coherently.

I hear you, but this isn't about the distinction between prepping situations vs. plots, ala the Alexandrian. It's more that you might come up with an intro scene or situation—often based solely on a couple details, in the moment, during the session—but no "if A happens, then X happens; if B, then Y." Like literally nothing past how it starts, then you flow from there. It's a matter of degree, which you can imagine being a meaningless distinction in the abstract, but once you start running it the difference is stark. The looser the framework, the better, otherwise you're more limited in your improvised consequences, and Devil's Bargains become less interesting and creative, etc.

To be more specific, the more tightly defined the situation is, the more likely you'll be to come with consequences that just resemble critical fumbles in a trad game. That's a huge and surprisingly common problem with starting out in PbtA or FitD. I've played with multiple GMs who default to fumbles without thinking, despite the fact that the rules explicitly warn against having consequences (on a partial success) negate the associated success.

There are 3 starter adventures in the book -- one for each ship. Although "adventure" is probably too strong a word. They are discrete scenarios. Weirdly, the smuggler one at least seems to suggest it should define the campaign going forward for a number of sessions. I don't think I would take that advice. S&V in particular just feels more episodic, with continuity emerging through interactions rather than some "ancient artifact plot."

You know, I was going through the book this morning, and I missed those yet again. I actually think SaV isn't presented as clearly as it could be, but that just sounds like me griping about my own lack of comprehension/memory.

Anyway, looking at those again, I still don't like em. And they're pretty clearly within the framework of the game's default setting, which I also don't like. I think they're as useful as a play example, basically.

As for the idea of a starting score establishing some overarching narrative elements, I don't think that's a bad idea at all. You're right that SaV is very episodic, but the game also says it should only really run for 12 to 20 sessions. That leaves plenty of time to let narrative thrulines emerge in play, but not a ton of time to just mess around. Coming up with some sort of metaplot elements early on doesn't hurt, or violate the game's principles. There could be a looming threat, but no defined sense of how the PCs might counter or even take advantage of it. You might turn a big bad in the first session into the central enemy for the campaign. The first session can absolutely set the rest of the game on a certain path. Or it can just be an intro. A lot of the advice in SaV is geared towards minimizing prep while setting up a narrative that doesn't feel totally random or meaningless. I don't like all of that advice, though.

 

[Reynard]

I hear you, but this isn't about the distinction between prepping situations vs. plots, ala the Alexandrian. It's more that you might come up with an intro scene or situation—often based solely on a couple details, in the moment, during the session—but no "if A happens, then X happens; if B, then Y." Like literally nothing past how it starts, then you flow from there. It's a matter of degree, which you can imagine being a meaningless distinction in the abstract, but once you start running it the difference is stark. The looser the framework, the better, otherwise you're more limited in your improvised consequences, and Devil's Bargains become less interesting and creative, etc.

Just so I understand:

Using The Mandalorian episode "The prisoner" as an example, the GM would set/roll up the scenario (recover a prisoner for a transport) and the players would decide on their approach and detail (cut their way in and skulk) and the engagement roll would define their starting position (in this case, they were good at first) but aside from that nothing is defined? Did the GM define that the ship was crewed by droids, or was that established during play? The layout of the place, the kinds of security, and all of that is based on the results of rolls and the conversation?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Just so I understand:

Using The Mandalorian episode "The prisoner" as an example, the GM would set/roll up the scenario (recover a prisoner for a transport) and the players would decide on their approach and detail (cut their way in and skulk) and the engagement roll would define their starting position (in this case, they were good at first) but aside from that nothing is defined? Did the GM define that the ship was crewed by droids, or was that established during play? The layout of the place, the kinds of security, and all of that is based on the results of rolls and the conversation?

That's part of the info gathering that leads to picking the mission.