Let's talk about "plot", "story", and "play to find out."

[Fenris-77]

My last FITD game most of the characters were action specialists, and then we had one who had 3 dots in each attribute. They muddled their way through rolling lots of 0d and 1d stuff, pulling things out by the skin of their teeth usually by spending copious amounts of stress. Great fiction and gaming.

Edit: oh yeah, that was the character who managed the astonishing feat of nothing higher than a 3 on a 5d pool.

Broad skill selection also really places the emphasis on the push, help, and devil's bargain mechanics which usually makes for engaging play.

I usually take two dice in one or two skills, whatever I want to be best at, and then 1 dot in anything else I want to be able to do with a eye to having solid resistance scores where possible. There's nothing wrong with a 3 die skill of course, it just means lower resistances. Multiple 3 die skills is where that can be a problem, in my experience. All those builds work of course, and this is a separate issue from specific skill fishing by players based on a specialist build.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

To be fair, your account of how the game plays is very odd. Fishing for specific stat use just isn't how the game is supposed to be played past a certain point. It's like goofy advantage fishing in D&D. Obviously, you want to use your best skills, and you can set situations up in order to do that, but it's the GM's job to reign that in past a certain point, usually via position and effect. Letting players use whatever skill they want on the flimsiest of excuses runs precisely counter to the account of play given in the rules.

I am not talking about flimsy excuses or stretching things beyond credulity, merely the ambiguity of the skill system either resulting time wasted on what is proper skill, or the player just choosing the better one. Like the discussion about whether the Kenobi vs Vader duel is skirmish or finesse is perfect example of this.

It's worth pointing out that the resistance mechanics are specifically set up to reward broad rather than deep skill acquisition. In most of the games I've played my character would have died many, many times if I'd focused my skills to max out on 3 and 4 dot specializations.

Yes, you obviously need the first dot for resistance, but this still means there is two to three dice gap between your best and worst skills.

If you have fun playing that way, all power to you, but your use of the rules at your table is not in any way standard. The issue at hand is your attempt to explain 'how the game works' using your idiosyncratic version, which simply isn't accurate.

People seem to be imagining something far more egregious than what I actually mean. I think your play is in keeping with the spirit of the rules and a logical outcome of the text of them.

 

[Fenris-77]

I am not talking about flimsy excuses or stretching things beyond credulity, merely the ambiguity of the skill system either resulting time wasted on what is proper skill, or the player just choosing the better one. Like the discussion about whether the Kenobi vs Vader duel is skirmish or finesse is perfect example of this.

The skill system isn't ambiguous at all. The players don't choose skills for a roll, the GM does. The players are supposed to describe their specific actions and based on that the GM asks some questions, assigns a skill, and sets P/E. You might feel like you're wasting time trying to find the right skill, but that doesn't make your experience the default. I appreciate your critique of the system, and I'm not trying to convince you to like it, I'm just pointing out that I think you are perhaps to some extent conflating your experience of the system with how it works or doesn't work generally.

Yes, you obviously need the first dot for resistance, but this still means there is two to three dice gap between your best and worst skills.

Do you mean resistances or skills here? Just making sure.

People seem to be imagining something far more egregious than what I actually mean. I think your play is in keeping with the spirit of the rules and a logical outcome of the text of them.

Yeah, I think we can avoid the shoutyness that often seems to happen in this conversation space. Blades is an easy game to bounce off of in various ways, the skill system and adjudication (especially position and effect) being high on that list. It took me a bunch of sessions to really get in a good groove with the rules, and it helped that the first GM I had for Blades was bloody marvelous.

 

[zakael19]

The players don't choose skills for a roll, the GM does.

Hm? The players have Final Say on the Actions they use, that's why the "Don't Be a Weasel" Best Practice is enumerated. The GM just tells you what using that Action/Approach will mean in the current fictional context.

 

[Fenris-77]

Hm? The players have Final Say on the Actions they use, that's why the "Don't Be a Weasel" Best Practice is enumerated. The GM just tells you what using that Action/Approach will mean in the current fictional context.

Sorry, I should have been more specific.

The gate is the GM saying 'it sounds like you want to X'. If the skill doesn't match the described action it shouldn't happen. If it badly matches the described action then position and effect should make that obvious to the player. The player still shouldn't be saying 'I want to prowl' in any event, and they certainly don't get to choose whatever skill they like free of any consequences related to the current situation.

 

[zakael19]

Sorry, I should have been more specific.

The gate is the GM saying 'it sounds like you want to X'. If the skill doesn't match the described action it shouldn't happen. If it badly matches the described action then position and effect should make that obvious to the player. The player still shouldn't be saying 'I want to prowl' in any event, and they certainly don't get to choose whatever skill they like free of any consequences related to the current situation.

Something something “fiction first gaming” something something.