Do you think it is convenient, that every time someone tries to persuade someone we need to discuss this sort of checklist?
No, not at all. I also don't think it's necessary, and I'm making suggestions to you to alleviate it since you seem frustrated by it.
The description of the two Actions.
When you Consort, you socialize with friends and contacts.
When you Sway, you influence someone with guile, charm, or argument.
What are the circumstances of this interaction? Who is the person to the PC? A friend, a rival, a stranger they just met? Is this a prolonged interaction, or just a short one? These things matter.
Right. So the player uses their descriptions to make use of desired skill plausible, Just like I have been saying.
I suppose if the players are the only ones contributing to the fiction, and the GM doesn't think anyone or anything involved in the conflict might do something to hinder someone from standing back and just taking potshots at people... then sure, exactly as you say.
I am sure some of it is fault of our group, but also, a lot of other people have said similar things, even in this thread. It is frustrating to discuss this game, because hard core adherents will not listen any criticism, and say that to them everything just magically works without being able to explain how. And the ambiguity of skills is objective fact about this system, and it is hardly surprising that it could lead to situations I describe.
I am listening to your criticism. What I'm suggesting to you would be ways to address the criticism at your table. You seem determined to argue rather than consider the advice. I don't know why? To prove the book can be clearer? Sure, the book can be clearer. To prove others have this issue? Sure, others have this issue.
Who cares about that? If the issue exists, I think it makes more sense to discuss what can be done about it.
So now we are supposed to creatively angle for use of better skills. But when I say we are doing it, you say we are doing it wrong? Which is it?
Creatively angle for use of better skills is just the wrong way to look at it, I think. Finding creative ways to address challenges? Sure. Again... fiction first.
You keep saying stuff like that. Then be specific. Quote what we are ignoring.
Many of the Player's Best Practices. They begin on page 182 of the book. Here's some snippets.
EMBRACE THE SCOUNDREL’S LIFE
- No matter how cool or how capable the PCs are, the heat will pile on, entanglements will blindside them, the powers-that-be will try to kick them down with no regard.
- Either way, your character is not you. Their fate is their own. We’re the advocates and fans of our characters, but they are not us. We don’t safeguard them as we might safeguard ourselves or our loved ones. They must go off into their dark and brutal world and strive and suffer for what they achieve- we can’t keep them safe here with us.
GO INTO DANGER, FALL IN LOVE WITH TROUBLE
- You’re a daring scoundrel on the mean streets of a haunted city. You’re not a risk-averse, ordinary citizen.
- Don’t shoot down risky ideas.
- Aim the action of the game toward what’s cool and fun and don’t feel like you have to manage every little risk. There will always be trouble and consequences of some kind. You’ll drive yourself batty if you try to avoid it all.
DON’T BE A WEASEL
- As a player, you have the privilege of choosing which action to roll. But with this privilege comes a responsibility—choose the action that matches what your character is doing—not simply the dice pool you would like to roll.
- For example, when you roll Tinker, it’s because you tinker with something. When you roll Sway, it’s because you sway someone’s opinion. If your crafty Leech shows off a cool gadget they made in order to sway a potential client, then the Leech is Swaying them. They’re not “using Tinker” to impress the person. That’s not how actions work.
- That’s why they’re called actions, not skills. They’re about what you’re doing, not what you know.
- If you’re the type of player that really needs to use their best dice pool all the time, take the Slide’s special ability Rook’s Gambit. It will cost you stress—but at least you won’t be a weasel.
TAKE RESPONSIBILITY
- You are a co-author of the game. If you want shortcomings and flaws to be part of the ongoing story, show your own character’s failure to make good decisions. If you want the world of Doskvol to be deadly, accept deadly harm when it’s time for your character to die.
- As a player, you have an expressive role to play at the table, not just a tactical one.
There are more, and those above go into things more deeply... but those are the most relevant tidbits that jumped out to me.
Mate. It is a duel between two disciples of the same martial school, a master and pupil in fact, fought using the ritual weapons of said school. It cannot get any more duely than this, so if this is not a clear case for finesse in combat, nothing is.
And this. This is the sort of discussion is what happens at the table.
Yes, and this is the kind of discussion that should happen at the table from time to time. That's fine. Personally, I'd lean toward Skirmish since it's a battle to the death... and Finesse doesn't really seem to be what Vader does. But a player could argue that Obi-Wan is using dexterous manipulation or maneuvering against his opponent, and so Finesse might be fine.
But this type of discussion should happen only occasionally, and should be pretty quick. If a player said to me Finesse, I'd likely just go with it and not even pause... it seems at least relevant. If the player said to me "I want to Wreck Vader", then I'd say "wait, what? Why wouldn't it be....?" and we'd discuss.
How? Do everyone magically and telepathically always agree what skill is most appropriate, or do you defer to the opinion of one person (presumably the GM or the person using the skill.) Because otherwise it will happen. Lately we often just defer to the choice of the skill user, to get past this, but this of course means that people are free to use their best somewhat plausible skill.
I mean, I don't think the Actions are anywhere near as ambiguous as your group seems to view them. Yes, there is overlap, yes, sometimes more than one might be appropriate... but I still think that the vast majority of times which one to use is pretty obvious.
I also don't let any such uncertainty hold the game up significantly. Ultimately, it's up to the player to choose and the GM to set Position/Effect accordingly. There's no need for anyone else to get involved. I don't mind if they do... I like players to offer suggestions in those moments. But those moments are few and far between in our game. If it was an issue for me, as it seems to be for you, then I would address it by keeping it up to the player with the GM there as a check to say "really?" if there's any weaseling going on.
Is it? What if the other guy thinks it is duel, and but I am fighting dirty? What if they are distracted by other combatant? What exactly are the parameters of waylaying in battle? On what basis are you making these determinations?
I mean, a duel is between two people, right? A battle is between (typically) two opposing sides, with multiple combatants. It's much easier to attempt to waylay someone in a battle, which is more chaotic, than it is to waylay someone in a one-on-one duel.
This is just using the fiction to guide us. What's happening in play? Okay, then how does that look mechanically?
So one of us does not understand how the system works, it seems.
Dude. I'm not the one complaining about it, am I?
You can take coin out of stash right? And you will get stash every time your gang levels, right? Even if you do not do the smart thing and take Little Something on the Side at first opportunity you will soon have some stash. So a situation where you absolutely cannot do a downtime action and must make this hard choice can only occur when you stash is depleted. And sure, such could happen so often than this eventually happens, but apart the early game this seems unlikely, and would mean that the characters are simply unable to accumulate stash at all, which probably is not intended or assumed level of pressure.
But depleting Stash should have an effect. It represents how well off you seem. If you Stash is constantly being spent on Downtime Actions, then your PC is likely looking pretty shabby. This would then impact how he's perceived by others... so this way, that decision comes with a cost.
Yes it is. It affects the fiction which affects appropriate skill.
No, it's not what I'm talking about. It's not about how I as a player describe my action. While that may play a part, what I'm actually talking about is the situation that has already been established in play.
So to lean on the duel example... two characters face off, swords drawn, ready to settle their rivalry once and for all... okay, here we go! The player then says "I spin around sneakily to try and Flank him, so I use Prowl" I'm going to say "He can see you. How are you sneaky?" and the player may then say "Well, maybe I feint to try and get him to commit, and leave me an opening" and I would then say "okay, that sounds more like Finesse or Skirmish, doesn't it?"
The situation in play matters. All your examples make it seem like your game is a white board of no details until the players offer them as part of action declaration.
Yes, so do I. Yet we apparently do not agree what that means. I understand it as characters making choices to do dangerous things in the fiction,
but the players using their game savvy for trying to ensure that this succeeds. You seem to understand it to mean something else, but I am not sure what, expect that you think we are doing things wrong somehow.
The bolded part is what I don't really agree with. Sure, creative use of an Action can be fine, but fishing to constantly use your best Action Rating is, to me, not the measure of a skilled player in Blades, and clearly doesn't align with Players Best Practices.
I like this game well enough, even though I have my issues with it. But it is frustrating to try to discuss matters relating to it here, as aficionados of the game are so defensive about it.
Maybe try listening instead of arguing.
If I want to try Burning Wheel, and it's not quite working for me, and I'm not sure why, I know who I'd likely reach out to for advice. Then when it was offered, I wouldn't just argue against it non-stop. I'd actively consider it, and ask questions.
Now, I realize you didn't request advice in this case. But you presented a view of the game that I don't think is entirely accurate, and in discussing, I think there are some clear reasons why... so I've made suggestions. I think the back and forth has gone on long enough... so unless you have any actual questions, I'll probably stop replying at this point.
This exchange of opinions is fun. I don't find it ambiguous at all. If all you mean is that the system isn't 1-1 like the, say, the D&D skill system is then sure, but if that's what you mean then I disagree that it's a bad thing at all. If not we can figure it out.
