Help me "get" Forged in the Dark.

[MarkB]

Um, no. The GM should not be considering stress available at any point. The system works out well such that stress handles itself

See, you say that, but you don't really support it with evidence. Stress doesn't handle itself as well in very small groups in my experience, and to just shrug and say "well, the rules don't say I need to care about that" seems disingenuous.

Taking account of available stress may not be in the GM's job description according to the book, but I like to run a game that's fun for players, and a player whose character is constantly accumulating traumas probably isn't having all that good a time.

 

[Ovinomancer]

See, you say that, but you don't really support it with evidence. Stress doesn't handle itself as well in very small groups in my experience, and to just shrug and say "well, the rules don't say I need to care about that" seems disingenuous.

Taking account of available stress may not be in the GM's job description according to the book, but I like to run a game that's fun for players, and a player whose character is constantly accumulating traumas probably isn't having all that good a time.

If your GM is the type that feels they need to manage play around PC stress totals, this already suggests that there's also an idea of what an "adventure" looks like, and this will be a self-sustaining prophecy. It is, however, not necessary. Do what the game tells you, and don't bring in outside assumptions, and it works just fine.

Again, the books for FitD games do way more to explicitly telling you how to play them than almost any other game out there. They do not, even once, mention that you should adjust play for number of players or that you should pay attention to the stress pools in how you GM the game. They do the opposite, in fact. The assumption here seems to be that this is an oversight by an otherwise brilliantly put together bit of design, fully integrated across it's entire loop and extensively playtested, and that you need to actually have experience in running other games to know how to fill in this blank and do it properly. I absolutely disagree this is the case.

 

[MarkB]

If your GM is the type that feels they need to manage play around PC stress totals, this already suggests that there's also an idea of what an "adventure" looks like, and this will be a self-sustaining prophecy. It is, however, not necessary. Do what the game tells you, and don't bring in outside assumptions, and it works just fine.

Again, the books for FitD games do way more to explicitly telling you how to play them than almost any other game out there. They do not, even once, mention that you should adjust play for number of players or that you should pay attention to the stress pools in how you GM the game. They do the opposite, in fact. The assumption here seems to be that this is an oversight by an otherwise brilliantly put together bit of design, fully integrated across it's entire loop and extensively playtested, and that you need to actually have experience in running other games to know how to fill in this blank and do it properly. I absolutely disagree this is the case.

I'm not speaking from experience with other games. I'm speaking from experience playing Blades in the Dark and running Scum & Villainy, and from the blindingly-obvious mathematical reality that managing stress becomes significantly more difficult with only two players.

You keep stating that you disagree, but you keep not addressing the actual substance of the points being made. Instead, you wave around the game's guidelines like they're an article of faith.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm not speaking from experience with other games. I'm speaking from experience playing Blades in the Dark and running Scum & Villainy, and from the blindingly-obvious mathematical reality that managing stress becomes significantly more difficult with only two players.

You keep stating that you disagree, but you keep not addressing the actual substance of the points being made. Instead, you wave around the game's guidelines like they're an article of faith.

I did, though. You responded by trying to insist that I prove how something doesn't have to be true instead of supporting your claim it was.


But, sure. The strong form of the argument you're putting forward is that a PC has some amount of stress X. So 2 PCs would have 2X stress if pooled together. This is the "obvious math," I think, that 2X is bigger than X (or that 4X is bigger than 2X). Sure, but the rest of your argument supposes there is some average cost to a mission, let's call that Y. If Y is bigger than the pool of X, you contend this is a problem. You further contend that Y is necessarily bigger than 2X such that the GM has to monitor it closely and adjust ganeplay so that Y is less than 2X. And that this is not necessary for larger numbers of PCs.

I disagree that Y is even an intended thing under the rules, and have supported this by showing that no such thing exists in any form in the rules. You say this is ne failing to support my argument, but the reverse is true.

The weak form of your argument is that GMs should be oaying attention to the value of Y so that it doesn't exceed the pool of X (so not fixed, but constantly massaged) to maintain a good game. And that this gets harder with a smaller pool of X. To which I've actually shown this to be contraindicated by the rules text.

So, the weak form is right out and the string form is on you to show there's some expectation of stress cost Y that's intended or a natural outcome of play. I've run for 2, 3, 4 and 5 and I never once paid attention to how much stress the PCs and had no resultant issues. That's the players' job to manage, not mine, and so long as I'm following the agenda and principles if play, and following the fiction, there's zero issue. We play to find out what happens.


Underlying both your and @Fenris-77's arguments is tge requirement that the GM curate the experience. This is not necessary, and, in my opinion, not the intended result (given it's not once mentioned). If you like it curated, then by all means go for it, but this is neither a requirement of the game nor a natural outcome of it.

 

[pemerton]

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?

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.

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.

I would add: the difference between framing and resolution is quite important.

There's nothing wrong with introducing a scene - You've been watching from your hiding space in the docking bay for over an hour now, and the only crew you've seen come and go are droids - or with making a "soft move" to introduce a rumour or similar information - Everyone you've spoken to says that the Century Bird is crewed entirely by rogue droids. That's part of how you, as GM, provide fictional context for the players to declare their actions.

But the GM's "private" or unrevealed conception of the fiction is not a limit on action resolution. Which is key to @MarkB's point. You can't just say "no" to the sort of thing he describes because, in your mind, there are only droids on board. But of course, if the resolution of the flashback goes poorly (ie bad dice rolls) then you can use your ideas to help flesh out the consequences (eg the human "crew member" with the access card was really a stowaway who had stolen an access card from a worker at a human-staffed maintenance yard, and so using it here and now turns out to have triggered alarms rather than smoothly opening the way in . . .).

 

[pemerton]

I don't have experience with BitD (or other FitD systems) and so am only tentatively stepping into this discussion about number of players and stress. But my understanding of @Ovinomancer's position is this: stress is a player-side resource, to be managed by the players; if there are two players and two PCs (and hence fewer stress boxes at the table than might be more typical), the onus is on the players to have regard to that in their play; this will include declaring actions that make sense for a two-person crew (like looking for jobs that two people can pull off; and pulling out when one of them is getting stressed); and that the mechanics and techniques of play, if properly followed by the GM, will make that approach by the players entirely feasible (ie there is no pre-established "the adventure" which the two PCs must complete before they extricate themselves into a recovery phase).

Ovinomancer, have I got your right(-ish)?

Also: I don't know if it's relevant that in Agon, Harper does discuss party size. He gives some advice for two-hero play. It's fairly generic, and from memory really speaks to players rather than GMs, who prepare islands just the same.

 

[Reynard]

I don't think this argument is going to help me much, other than to underscore that different people run FitD games differently-- which is useful at least in that it gives me permission to not feel like I have to do it one particular way. But otherwise I feel like it is becoming a distraction.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I don't think this argument is going to help me much, other than to underscore that different people run FitD games differently-- which is useful at least in that it gives me permission to not feel like I have to do it one particular way. But otherwise I feel like it is becoming a distraction.

Sure, disregard it then. My suggestion that you do not have to worry about stress at all stands, though.

 

[MarkB]

I don't think this argument is going to help me much, other than to underscore that different people run FitD games differently-- which is useful at least in that it gives me permission to not feel like I have to do it one particular way. But otherwise I feel like it is becoming a distraction.

Fair enough. We're just going around and around at this point, so no point in continuing.

 

[Reynard]

A question about campaign structure. Note: this probably isn't relevant to Band of Blades but seems relevant to Scum and Villainy.

The book suggests a campaign length of 12 or so jobs. Is that intended to be a hard limit (and therefore built into mechanics like xp) or is a "campaign" more like a season of a TV show. Is it not possible or practical to play FitD games for longer periods than a quarter?