Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Grendel_Khan" data-source="post: 8680559" data-attributes="member: 7028554">In my experience you might be starting a given scene or encounter in what you're saying is not a significant departure from a trad approach. The biggest difference is how things proceed from there, which is much more improvisational, and often much faster-to-resolve.-The range of outcomes based on a PC's chosen action, and then roll, is extremely broad. In a trad approach it might be pretty binary—the PCs convince the toughs, or they don't. The matrix of different options and roll results in FitD mean that way more kinds of things could result. A miss on a desperate action might mean that not only do the toughs attack, but more of them show up to flank the PCs.-Once you resolve the first action, the outcome determines what happens next, not some preplanned plot trigger or victory/fail condition you've set up. So let's say you offered the rolling player a Devil's Bargain that, no matter how they roll, the deserter leading those toughs is going to want to duel them. Or a different bargain, that he's going to become their enemy for the foreseeable future. If the player takes the bargain, and gets the associated bonus on their roll, that will set up both immediate and lasting consequences. Maybe in the resulting duel the player rolls a success with consequence that means they beat the deserter in a manner that's so extreme they gain a lasting rep for brutality among the civilian population. Or if the bargain is that the deserter is now an enemy, a future missed roll could mean he's ratted your unit out to the undead army's scouts, and they try to ambush you.Some might say that establishing the deserter-led group of toughs in the first place isn't a pure FitD play loop, and that you'd want to let something like that appear based on rolls. But I think occasional trad-style setups are fine, especially early in a session or mission, as long as you let things take a more improvisational direction for the rest of it. And in the case of Blades in the Dark or Scum and Villainy, you might start the score with a situation like you described—a clear sub-goal and obstacle—based on the results of the Engagement roll (the roll that's meant to start you in media res, basically, partway through the score).Btw, I'm very excited that you're giving BoB a close read. I would say, though, that I find that one among the more difficult FitD games to really understand or use. Even Blades in the Dark was a little wriggly for me. It wasn't until I read Scum and Villainy, and started viewing all of the mechanics through a pulpy, fast-paced Star Wars lens that it really clicked for me. Not saying you should put down BoB at all. Just noting that I think I'd have a really tough time GMing it, since it doesn't seem to allow for as much flexibility when improvising and reacting, which is almost all you're doing as a FitD GM. I'd be constantly worried about running it off the rails (since that game is definitely on rails, at a macro level) or violating the tone and premise, in a way that I wouldn't with most other FitD games.</blockquote>

Verification