Help me "get" Forged in the Dark.

[MarkB]

I've been a player in a long-running 5-player campaign that dropped to 3 players partway through, and we definitely felt the squeeze, both in the lower total available stress and the narrower selection of core competencies. I could easily see that effect being exponential when dropping to two characters in play.

We were able to mitigate the effects through selection of stress-management abilities as we progressed - Forged in Fire is amazing, and the Spider's Functioning Vice helps to max-out those downtime stress reductions - but we might have chosen different options if it had been less of a concern.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Well, sure lets compare anecdotal evidence I guess. I've found both playing and running 2 PC FitD stresses the system rather a lot of if you don't manage it. My experience says it does not work as advertised. You say it does. We can't both be right. Happily, math is on my side. Do you have anything specific to say about that other that 'yeah it works' when even the basic math suggests it gets far more difficult? I'm really reaching to find the middle ground here my friend, but I'm struggling with that dismissive attitude you seem to put on sometimes, even in face of equal skill and experience. But, I guess, sure, go ahead and tell me again I don't know the game or how to run it if that's what you meant. We can agree to disagree.

By math I assume you mean counting stress boxes and saying "I have more" because there isn't any other math. And that only matters if you're making the assumption that the same stress pool will be applied to the same circumstances, which it should not be. The agenda and principles of play are about applying pressure to characters, not building out scores with fixed or standardized lengths or actions necessary. You follow the fiction as makes sense for two people, and two should be taking on scores that require two people, not four. It's all in the fiction, principles, and agendas.

There seems to be some legacy "this is what an adventure looks like, and if you don't bring enough resources, it's gonna be tough" going on here. But this shouldn't be applicable.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I've been a player in a long-running 5-player campaign that dropped to 3 players partway through, and we definitely felt the squeeze, both in the lower total available stress and the narrower selection of core competencies. I could easily see that effect being exponential when dropping to two characters in play.

We were able to mitigate the effects through selection of stress-management abilities as we progressed - Forged in Fire is amazing, and the Spider's Functioning Vice helps to max-out those downtime stress reductions - but we might have chosen different options if it had been less of a concern.

Narrow selection of core competencies is a good observation, and can lead to a stress problem. This comes more down to players making choices to put forward their core competencies and to go after scores that allow this.

 

[MarkB]

By math I assume you mean counting stress boxes and saying "I have more" because there isn't any other math. And that only matters if you're making the assumption that the same stress pool will be applied to the same circumstances, which it should not be. The agenda and principles of play are about applying pressure to characters, not building out scores with fixed or standardized lengths or actions necessary. You follow the fiction as makes sense for two people, and two should be taking on scores that require two people, not four. It's all in the fiction, principles, and agendas.

There seems to be some legacy "this is what an adventure looks like, and if you don't bring enough resources, it's gonna be tough" going on here. But this shouldn't be applicable.

If two jobs last roughly the same amount of time, and involve roughly the same number of checks, then they'll both involve roughly the same amount of stress expenditure, in either boosting checks or resisting consequences, since in most cases a single player will resolve each check, barring a few group checks.

But the job being done by four characters has twice the available stress to spend as the one being done by two characters.

I'm not sure exactly how you can have a group of two characters getting to the end of a job with the same amount of unspent stress per character as a group of four characters, unless the group of two were making half as many checks - which equates to their job taking roughly half as long.

 

[Ovinomancer]

If two jobs last roughly the same amount of time, and involve roughly the same number of checks, then they'll both involve roughly the same amount of stress expenditure, in either boosting checks or resisting consequences, since in most cases a single player will resolve each check, barring a few group checks.

But the job being done by four characters has twice the available stress to spend as the one being done by two characters.

I'm not sure exactly how you can have a group of two characters getting to the end of a job with the same amount of unspent stress per character as a group of four characters, unless the group of two were making half as many checks - which equates to their job taking roughly half as long.

Why would the first two things be true?

 

[Reynard]

I believe it is 9 for Scum & Villainy as well as Blades in the Dark. Band of Blades is 6, but more can be gained through an advance.

The character sheets of each game have a track that the players can use to track it and when they mark the last box on the track, they're out of play for the remainder of the scene, and they gain a trauma.

Now that I have the PDF with the playbooks I see that. I find it a little odd that the playbooks aren't in the actual physical book. Anyway, not a big deal. i just found it strange.

 

[MarkB]

Why would the first two things be true?

If they're not, then don't be oblique - explain why they're not.

 

[amethal]

You could establish the droid crew ahead of time, as something the PCs learn when getting or researching the job. Could maybe do the same for layout, possibly making one or both of those details part of the engagement roll result. But the emphasis is on what the characters know, rather than what you've established for yourself, and then hidden, to be revealed during play. Most of the game world doesn't really exist until they encounter it.

I'm also very new to this type of game (and this thread has been very helpful, thank you).

Can I just clarify that (usually, anyway) the only way the GM knows in advance that the ship is crewed by droids is if the PCs found it out as part of their preparation?

But the GM might have thought of "some/most/all of the crew are droids" as a possible complication which could be used as appropriate if the situation calls for it?

Unlike in a traditional game, where the adventure has already set out that the crew are droids, and the GM knows that the PCs are going to have to ditch their original plan almost immediately, since it was based on the false assumption that the crew were lifeforms.

 

[MarkB]

I'm also very new to this type of game (and this thread has been very helpful, thank you).

Can I just clarify that (usually, anyway) the only way the GM knows in advance that the ship is crewed by droids is if the PCs found it out as part of their preparation?

But the GM might have thought of "some/most/all of the crew are droids" as a possible complication which could be used as appropriate if the situation calls for it?

Unlike in a traditional game, where the adventure has already set out that the crew are droids, and the GM knows that the PCs are going to have to ditch their original plan almost immediately, since it was based on the false assumption that the crew were lifeforms.

Pretty much. The GM can have some details in mind, so that he can provide extra detail and colour without having to make it up on the spot, but he should be flexible and ready to adapt.

For instance, if they're having trouble finding away to get aboard, and a player declares a flashback to having arranged an encounter with one of the crew and pickpocketed his access card, you should go with that and abandon the idea that there are only droids on board.

 

[Fenris-77]

By math I assume you mean counting stress boxes and saying "I have more" because there isn't any other math. And that only matters if you're making the assumption that the same stress pool will be applied to the same circumstances, which it should not be. The agenda and principles of play are about applying pressure to characters, not building out scores with fixed or standardized lengths or actions necessary. You follow the fiction as makes sense for two people, and two should be taking on scores that require two people, not four. It's all in the fiction, principles, and agendas.

There seems to be some legacy "this is what an adventure looks like, and if you don't bring enough resources, it's gonna be tough" going on here. But this shouldn't be applicable.

Well, yes and no. Yes, there are more stress boxes, which is indeed important, but that's only half the problem. The other half, and maybe the more important half, is that rather than acting every third or fourth action (I'm making assumptions about equal spotlight, obviously) you're acting every other action. Far more actions per session than with more players. The more rolls you make the more stress you're going to end up spending to push, resist, and whatnot. This made even more true when you consider that with fewer PCs you will inevitably be rolling more often on less dice more often than with 3 PCs because you (in most cases) have less skills covered at multiple dots.

Taking on scores for two doesn't really change the above, although that part of your argument I completely agree with. However, I think bad decisions there only exacerbate an existing issue rather than being the core cause of it.