Help me "get" Forged in the Dark.

[Fenris-77]

Why would the first two things be true?

Session length in the first case (as just one reasonable answer). The second point is obviously, and somewhat trivially true - PCs x Stress Boxes.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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

Um. Why would they be was the question, turning it around doesn't seem like fair play. But, okay. Scores in Blades, or missions in whatever, are not planned, fixed length affairs. There is no target number of actions to resolve, or length of activity. You cannot find anything in any of the books that suggests this. In fact, you have this bit:

"A score can be long and involved or short and sweet. There might be lots of rolls and trouble, or just a few actions to resolve it. Play to find out what happens! A score doesn’t need to fill one session of play every time. Let it be however long it is."

This clearly indicates, with reference to "play to find out" that there shouldn't even be really a plan for how long a score is going in. So, yeah, there's no reason that a score for 2 would look anything like a score for 4. Because that fiction is different, and what happens in play is different.

 

[Fenris-77]

Um. Why would they be was the question, turning it around doesn't seem like fair play. But, okay. Scores in Blades, or missions in whatever, are not planned, fixed length affairs. There is no target number of actions to resolve, or length of activity. You cannot find anything in any of the books that suggests this. In fact, you have this bit:

"A score can be long and involved or short and sweet. There might be lots of rolls and trouble, or just a few actions to resolve it. Play to find out what happens! A score doesn’t need to fill one session of play every time. Let it be however long it is."

This clearly indicates, with reference to "play to find out" that there shouldn't even be really a plan for how long a score is going in. So, yeah, there's no reason that a score for 2 would look anything like a score for 4. Because that fiction is different, and what happens in play is different.

Wouldn't that same set of quotes also suggest that there's no reason that it couldn't be just as long or complicated for 2 players? No one was suggesting that there was a plan either way I don't think. We can probably all agree that we should be playing the fiction as it happens though.

I was actually specifically talking about the nature of 'play to find out' as a significant component of the problems facing a 2 PC crew.

 

[MarkB]

Um. Why would they be was the question, turning it around doesn't seem like fair play. But, okay. Scores in Blades, or missions in whatever, are not planned, fixed length affairs. There is no target number of actions to resolve, or length of activity. You cannot find anything in any of the books that suggests this. In fact, you have this bit:

"A score can be long and involved or short and sweet. There might be lots of rolls and trouble, or just a few actions to resolve it. Play to find out what happens! A score doesn’t need to fill one session of play every time. Let it be however long it is."

This clearly indicates, with reference to "play to find out" that there shouldn't even be really a plan for how long a score is going in. So, yeah, there's no reason that a score for 2 would look anything like a score for 4. Because that fiction is different, and what happens in play is different.

Yeah, but nobody's arguing for a fixed length. Your original statement was that no consideration should be taken of pacing or available stress when running for smaller groups. If you're now saying that jobs for smaller groups are, in fact, likely to trend shorter than ones for larger groups due to available resources, it seems like that means that available stress is being taken into consideration.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yeah, but nobody's arguing for a fixed length. Your original statement was that no consideration should be taken of pacing or available stress when running for smaller groups. If you're now saying that jobs for smaller groups are, in fact, likely to trend shorter than ones for larger groups due to available resources, it seems like that means that available stress is being taken into consideration.

Um, no. The GM should not be considering stress available at any point. The system works out well such that stress handles itself, but that doesn't mean it's part of the GM's overhead. FitD really makes this very simple: the GM needs to follow the agenda and principles of play, and then just follow the fiction and player actions. Nothing in the books tells you that you need to be actively managing player-side totals of anything, and you should not. A player with no available stress is their problem, not the GM's.

The only reason you'd be pacing based on stress would be to deliver some form of curated, GM-led experience where the PCs are meant to succeed after some acceptable amount of tribulations. This is NOT what these systems are meant to deliver, at all. And they tell you so. This push to consider the PCs, or to consider stress available, is not part of the process. The system is built to give players plenty of cushion and the need to make choices that matter. Let them. Don't worry about it. Pacing is not something the GM is supposed to be doing in FitD.

 

[Fenris-77]

A serious question @Ovinomancer . You seem to be suggesting that the rules and principles of play should work as advertised regardless of how many PCs there are. That seems very counter to most systems, which do indeed have a specific number of players at which the system works well, and then that system works less well as you raise or lower that number. I just wanted to clarify whether you were arguing that FitD specifically works fine for 2 PCs, or that FitD works fine no matter how many players there are. I ask because a lot of your posts seem to be addressing the latter while my posts, and those of @MarkB seem to be more specifically about the mechanics at the 2PC level.

I don't want to misunderstand or put words in your mouth.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

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.

Just to add a small point to @MarkB 's response, I don't think you have to police your own thoughts and general/casual prep—if you think of some neat stuff, go ahead and use it, either in a current/upcoming session or one further down the line. Just don't go super deep with prepping anything in particular, and be ready to drop or change those ideas in a heartbeat. FitD (and PbtA) can be stressful to run at first but it's great practice for killing your darlings.

 

[Ovinomancer]

A serious question @Ovinomancer . You seem to be suggesting that the rules and principles of play should work as advertised regardless of how many PCs there are. That seems very counter to most systems, which do indeed have a specific number of players at which the system works well, and then that system works less well as you raise or lower that number. I just wanted to clarify whether you were arguing that FitD specifically works fine for 2 PCs, or that FitD works fine no matter how many players there are. I ask because a lot of your posts seem to be addressing the latter while my posts, and those of @MarkB seem to be more specifically about the mechanics at the 2PC level.

I don't want to misunderstand or put words in your mouth.

I am 100% representing this. I don't understand where you're getting that they wouldn't, except to bring your understanding of how other games work into it. In other words, you're the one bringing in outside assumptions, specifically the one that it is incumbent on the GM to curate the game by adjusting difficulty on the fly to match up to current PC-side resources. I reject this assumption being universal, or being applicable to Blades/S&V in particular.

As for working fine with any number of players, I'd absolutely say that once you go past four, the effort necessary on the human components begins to become rapidly unsustainable. This isn't saying anything about the system mechanics, just that it's hard to effectively follow the principles and agendas of play the more you split the necessary attention.

 

[Reynard]

A friend who will be playing in my first attempt sent me this video by John Harper on positioning. It's very cool.

And now I am deeply into the "History of Blades" videos that deep dives into how the game developed, which is just cool from a game design standpoint.

 

[Fenris-77]

I am 100% representing this. I don't understand where you're getting that they wouldn't, except to bring your understanding of how other games work into it. In other words, you're the one bringing in outside assumptions, specifically the one that it is incumbent on the GM to curate the game by adjusting difficulty on the fly to match up to current PC-side resources. I reject this assumption being universal, or being applicable to Blades/S&V in particular.

As for working fine with any number of players, I'd absolutely say that once you go past four, the effort necessary on the human components begins to become rapidly unsustainable. This isn't saying anything about the system mechanics, just that it's hard to effectively follow the principles and agendas of play the more you split the necessary attention.

Um, yeah, my understanding of other RPGs certainly informs my opinions about FitD. Why wouldn't that be the case? Different sets of mechanics work better and worse at various numbers of players. The better you understand the nuances of how that works the better able you will be to target the 'correct' number of players. That skill is best gained from playing many games and understanding many mechanics.

Also I was not, in any way shape or form, suggesting that the GM specially curate anything. What I was suggesting is that the FitD rules fall down a little bit when played at 2 PCs due to the mechanical stress placed on generally insufficient resources. In my opinion at 2 PCs it's hard to effectively follow the principles and agendas of play because of resource shortfalls generated specifically by the GM following those principles and agendas. Rather that suggesting a curated game, I was suggesting that people avoid playing with 2 PCs.

The above said, I do think that 2 PCs (one fewer than the ideal 3-4) is a better idea than playing with 5 or 6 PCs, so we agree about that bit anyway.