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

[pemerton]

I have run entire campaigns on no prep. I have strolled in with just a cursory glance at notes. And I have read and examined the notes carefully. The games, as a I said before, can produce great stories. They, as I said before, great fun. It's very freeing to not have to interweave everything. The games, as I have said before, are full of whimsy: astral sailing and fighting githyanki pirates one day, marrying a hill giant the next, and competing with hobbits in a sack race the third. Super fun for me to run. Those types of campaigns are super fun as a player too.

All that said, you are blind if you think those adventures have more internal consistency than ones that have been thoroughly prepped, written, and planned.

By "internal consistency", you seem to mean something like "has a uniformity of trope and tone". Not a property of the fiction from the fiction's perspective, but of the fiction from an audience's perspective.

You also seem to be assuming that RPGing involves "an (or the) adventure".

The whole sense if get from your accounts of consistency in fiction and its relationship to play is of an early-to-mid 90s TSR setting and its associated modules.

I can agree, all those questions are valid. But they are all also irrelevant to my claim. The example wasn't extreme. I just gave a common example: One GM preps a lot and the other is all improv. Which one would have greater internal consistency over the course of a campaign? Common sense tells us the one who preps probably will.

I don't think that's common sense at all. I engage with a lot of people having to write things. (University students.) Many of them struggle to remain consistent across a 1500 word paper where they have a strong incentive -namely, the grade that will end up on their transcript of results - to do a good job. I don't have any reason to think they would do a better job across a more sprawling set of compositions where nothing more is at stake than the playing of a hobby game.

I can give my experiences as a player (I am lucky - all the campaigns I have played in have been great!), and explain how the GM prep made the world feel real and succinct. I can give you my experiences of using my campaign setting has way more internal consistency than games where I GM in a generic fantasy world. But it really doesn't matter. Things like: cosmology, religion, species, food, geography, economy, etc. can all come into play when playing an RPG. Comparing a person who has spent time working the connecting threads out for those things or someone just making stuff up (or letting players make stuff up) is always going to lead to me thinking the former will have greater internal consistency.

But internal consistency shows up during play; when the GM is describing a building or NPC or geographical location or meal or music or (fill in the blank). It appears when the player asks questions about those things too. All those things bleed into the tone, mood, and theme of the story being created. And for me, both as a player and GM, they matter.

You can definitely believe that. And if that is the case, then I guess nothing is really internally consistent unless you have experienced it in the real world. That's ok. It is a valid claim.

It's not about having experienced it in the real world. For me, it's about the difference between contrived fiction, and what one encounters in the real world: which is the product not of rational authorship but of uncountably many decisions and causal influences, operating iteratively and reflexively, and involving multiple path dependencies.

You mention buildings. I live in a suburb where the oldest buildings were built around about 170 years ago; where the biggest public building is a town hall built about 140 years ago; where there are apartment blocks whose construction finished last year; and nearly everything in between. What would count as consistency or inconsistency in describing a building? I mean, if a GM were to narrate a low rise art deco building where part of the brick exterior has been replaced by a concrete wall with a corrugated steel roller-door in it, would that be out of place? Probably not. if the GM were to narrate a stairway to nowhere in the public building, that would not be out of place at all, because I've seen that stairway! (Obviously it once went somewhere, but in 140 years a building can undergo a lot of internal change.)

Or music. The last time I was in East Africa, a friend was taking me through examples of popular music from different parts of Africa. They at least asserted to be able to tell (say) Nigerian from Congolese music. I don't know how well they would do in a blind test, but I know that based on what they played for me I would have no chance. My partner can often tell British from American hip hop by the sound, or by the first 30 seconds of a music video; I can't. But the "often" is deliberate - I've seen her be wrong. I can tell you, with confidence, that there is something distinctive about classic (mid-70s to mid-/late-80s Aussie rock - but I couldn't describe it accurately, and don't purport to be able to recognise even the most obscure example of it from, say, an opening guitar riff.

These things are so subtle, so intricate. The idea that a GM can write 200 pages of notes that convey a consistent, coherent culture isn't something I've ever encountered.

What I've experienced, when it comes to RPG settings, is 200 pages of tropes or motifs, that get deployed to convey some fictional fact like now you're in this place. A bit like how Chris Claremont conveys that Colossus is Russian by having him exclaim "Lenin's ghost!" or call his friend "tovarishch". Or how a certain sort of British drama will always film in the street where the mid-to-late 19th century terraces are still all there.

If you can't believe that a teacher that knows their curriculum and planned thoroughly doesn't have greater consistency in teaching, then the point is moot. It is the same with a GM. If you can't believe that a GM that has thought a lot, written a lot, and planned a lot for a setting isn't more consistent than someone making stuff up, then the point is moot.

Anyone can disbelieve something. It happens all the time. It is why I brought up the example earlier of the telling a teacher that their lesson will take two days, not one - and they refuse to believe it. And then, behold, it takes them two days, and they can't figure out why. Some people just can't see pacing. Just like some can't see consistency.

I find this a little condescending. I, and the other posters who you're engaging with, are not colleagues who have come to you for advice because we're puzzled about why our lessons - or gaming sessions - don't work out as we hoped.

 

[pemerton]

So maybe if you're not drawing that distinction there between: we all work together to understand the risk and outcome to ensure it makes sense to the table and then: the dice roll and what happens happens? Because like, when I've played OSR games there's tons of the first bit! We talk and plan and try and figure out risks and ask the GM questions about how we understand things and maybe it's not as concrete as BITD does, but the kinda "coming to consensus on a plan of action based on the fiction and then carrying it out" feels similar.

This made a lot of sense to me!

I can't really credit that the way players debate and discuss among one another and work out their action declarations is "organic" in D&D but is "writers' room" in BitD.

 

[pemerton]

Ok! I mean, people talk about GM forward OSR play as being totally obvious and easy to do and I bounce off it hard for a variety of reasons so like, got it that different people have different gaming preferences.

But.

Lets rewrite a couple of Actions.

"When you entangle a target in close combat so they can't easily escape, Roll Skirmish."

This is pretty obvious, right? You're in close combat, and you're trying to keep them there (and probably win).

Lets compare to Wreck.

"When you unleash savage force, roll Wreck."

The text here says "yeah, we can see that you might want to use this in close combat, and you could? Maybe? But it's not really fighting and it might be a lot harder to pull off - skirmish is probably want you want here."

But then you figure out that no, I'm not trying to like, fight them. I want to actually just smash into the knot of Bluecloaks and ideally send them flying so my crew can get past. I'm not skirmishing, in that my goal isn't to fight people - the effect is "you bowl the blue cloaks over and they have to pull themselves together" but teh position is probably Desperate - you're facing a bunch of folks with swords and guns with your body and a hammer or something (see: a literal example on p181 of how Wreck isn't ideal for fighting).

So the absolute core idea is to get a player to say what their character does that makes interesting fiction. And sometimes accept that it's not with your best stats because failure is often interesting (Player Best Practices: Don't Be a Weasel / Go Into Danger, Fall in Love with Trouble).

Finally, p170 of the core book forward has way more detailed discussions of what an Action is, isn't, and what different Positions look like then I've seen in the vast majority of TTRPGs.

My take away from this is that, for the skill list to work, (i) the table has to care about the difference between getting in close and fight-y with the bluecoats, and bowling them all over by wildly swinging your hammer, and (ii) the GM has to make the effort to have these things play out differently in the consequences.

Which is not a surprise - the game's skill set-up says something about what the game is about!

In Torchbearer 2e, Persuader, Manipulator, Orator, Beggar and Haggler are different social skills. The game cares about these different ways of trying to get someone to go along with what you want. Prince Valiant's skills overlap a bit but aren't identical: Fellowship (similar to Persuader but not identical), Glamourie (pretty close to Manipulator but doesn't include intimidation and plays up seduction a bit more), and Oratory (near-identical to Orator), Bargaining (near-identical to Haggler). And Burning Wheel's list is longer - eg it carves TB2e's Manipulator at least into Seduction, Falsehood, Extortion, Intimidation and maybe one or two others I'm forgetting at the moment.

If I don't want to worry about the difference between extorting someone and just bullying them, then Burning Wheel may not be the game for me! That's fine, but it's not a problem with Burning Wheel.

 

[Artamo]

This made a lot of sense to me!

I can't really credit that the way players debate and discuss among one another and work out their action declarations is "organic" in D&D but is "writers' room" in BitD.

I think that’s a fair comment. Speaking for myself, when I was playing Scum and Villany, I was expecting a more free flowing narrative and less analysis of the situation to take place, which I think the game supports on the page. In practice, I think sometimes we bogged down in a counterintuitive way when our group played it. I will say: I don’t think our GM is maybe as quick on his feet thinking of a satisfying narrative, and that’s not the game’s fault. We discuss and debate in D&D because the rules seem set up for that kind of analysis. FitD games feel like they should be much quicker.

We probably just suck at improv.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Sure. I don't mean there never are situations where it is not pretty clear cut which skill to use. It is just a that due the intentional overlap, the situations where it is not clear cut are very common, and then it is is more about flavour and how you describe things will affect it. And this is either intentional or if it is not, bad rules writing.

They happen way more often than any other game I've encountered. Because whilst some edge cases always exist, most games are written in attempt to avoid such from occurring, whilst Blades seem to for some reason to be written to intentionally create them.

And what I’m saying, and I expect most others familiar with the game would agree, is that most of the time, the relevant Action is pretty obvious.

Yes, the game allows for more than one… they want players to be creative. But they also want players to be principled in their approach to play.

I think style of command is more distinct. Consort and sway overlap a lot though, and it often is far from clear which is the one that obviously used.

Do they? Sway is when you’re trying to convince someone to agree with you, or otherwise change their mind. Consort is when you are engaging in the manner of a friend. Both might be able to be used to achieve the same goal, but I think they’ve got a pretty distinct purpose, even if there might be some overlap.

You are again thinking about situation where it is clear which skill to use, like sniping someone from a roof. Of course that is hunt. But if we are in combat, and the enemy is not next to me, I have some distance, like they're across the room or yard or something. Then do I use hunt or skirmish? Skirmish is for close combat, hunt is for shooting from "long distances." Unclear, and intentionally so, I'd argue. And the actual play is full of situations like this.

Is the PC engaged with other enemies? Is anyone nearby who may threaten him as he takes aim? Or is he relatively isolated or free from threat?

Again… the situation needs to be looked at. NPCs take action largely in response to player rolls… so all that matters.

They could. But again, I am not talking about trying to stretch skills beyond credulity, merely taking advantage of the ambiguity.

Yes, and I’m not saying the text is perfect in this regard. There are some organizational issues and sometimes lack of clarity.

But if you’re finding that this kind of thing is happening more often than not… like I said, I think a discussion is in order between the GM and players. That’s what I would do, anyway.

I mean, with game where the skills are intentionally ambiguous like this we probably couldn't, but then there at least would not be haggling and and discussing it all the time. GM says it is this, and that's that.

So then why not just do that?

But it is not a hard decision whether to roll with tree dice or one.

Why is this a choice? What’s happening in the fiction? Why is Wreck a better choice than Skirmish? Why does Command make more sense than Consort? Just giving the players totally free rein to choose without any regard for the situation in play sohnds like it’s the issue… especially with players who can’t break the “mitigate all risks before acting” mindset of a more D&D style approach to play.

And yeas, sometimes there indeed could be touch choices like you mention (except not really, as then you just pay for extra action, with stash if necessary and do both.) but most of the time it just is pretty basic maths and managing numbers.

Then the GM is not putting enough pressure on the Crew. Those things should not be such simple choices. Occasionally so, sure… but your depiction here makes it sound like this is the norm.

What does it actually mean? Does it mean to not play skilfully? Like characters are doing crimes left and right, of course they're living dangerously, but does it mean the players should not try to use rules to manage risks and increase the chance of success?

It means use the Action that makes the most sense based on the fictional situation. Like, as a player in Blades, when you’re about to choose an Action, imagine which one you’d call for as GM in a more traditional game… then go with that, no matter how many dots you have in it. Fiction first.

Embrace danger is about not trying to mitigate every risk. The way Blades works is such that you don’t need to try and remove all danger before you act. The player has resources to help them… so do it. The saying “play your PC like you’d drive a stolen car”. Don’t be precious about your PC. Hold on loosely.

Are you sure they are not about to duel, and thus use finesse? But yeah, not prowl. Until one of them is distracted by something else, and one can reposition and attack from unexpected angle, then a case for prowl could be made. In any case, even with you original example I think at least as strong case could be made for finesse.

A case could be made for Finesse, sure. I don’t think that an unexpected angle would warrant a Prowl… that’s a real stretch.

Yeah, so sometimes it might be setup action, but often it is just the situation evolving, sometimes it could be a help action. Like if one character throws a bomb at the enemies (using wreck) then another can use the confusion, smoke etc to use prowl to get a drop on one of them. Stuff like that.

Okay, but when that character uses Prowl to get into advantage, the player makes a roll… where things can go wrong.

Either way… I think that this is something that can be mitigated. I mean, I know it doesn’t have to be an issue… I’ve run and played in games where none of what you’ve expressed has been a major concern at all, and so have many others. Now, if folks are enjoying the game as is, then hey, keep going. But if not, then a discussion is in order.

 

[zakael19]

FWIW, part of the Threat Roll redux in Harper's Deep Cuts is designed to alleviate some of these issues he'd seen around the internet in APs & comments: the GM suggests how they understand the Action Rating the player is using in their declaration ("cool, sounds like you're Skirmishing then?"). The player can still pick of course, but the GM is saying how they understand the fiction at hand based on teh situation and the player's depiction of their scoundrel's action.

I personally find the Threat Roll to flow a lot more smoothly at my tables, because it just clicks better for my brain (we have a conversation, the players say they do things that carry risk, I front a Threat, the player says how they avoid it, we roll and see what happens).

 

[pemerton]

I haven't played or GMed BitD. But it seems to me that, if a player wants to roll Prowl to reflect their PC taking a sneaky strike in the midst of an ongoing melee, that should increase the risk - like, Risky to Desperate? (If I've got the terminology right.)

 

[Micah Sweet]

** Sigh **

The game is free. Go play it. It's meant to be played solo as a default mode of play. Go try it out for 2-3 hours.

It's a game because it has structured rules for how specific narrative elements evolve. When you undertake a journey, you don't get to decide whether you arrive at your destination, or in what condition your character is in when you arrive.

The structure of the rules determines that. The first solo game of Ironsworn ever played, my character died in a blizzard en route to a destination. Four total failures on rolls for journeying depleted my supplies, then rolled a final total failure against my negative momentum.

The structure of the rules determines who has the initiative in combat vs. being "on your heels" and needing to play defensively. The rules determines how much harm your character takes under specific action resolution circumstances.

Honestly, your query is so ill-informed as to be insulting. Please stop making comments like this without having the faintest idea of what the game rules state.

Again, the game's core PDF of the rules is literally free. If taking 3 hours of your life isn't worth it to at least try out the core game experience, I don't know what to tell you. I've spent $80+ on board games that gave me far less enjoyment in 2.5 hours than my solo games of Ironsworn that cost me absolutely nothing.

I see nothing wrong with asking questions when the statement to which I was responding was so vague on how it made sense as a game. Your answer makes sense to me, and I will check it out now, since you provided actionable information. Thank you.

 

[pemerton]

In my experience if the GM has done "a boatload of prep" that tends to move it outside the realms of a collaborative table and into the realms of "The GM's table with some other people".

I tend to agree - the "boatload" suggets a lot of prescripting events, and maybe also a monopoly on backstory.

The GM should prep

I think this depends on the system, and other stuff too. I've run plenty of games where I didn't prep, and plenty of those have been plenty of fun.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No, I’m not blind. What a douchey way to disagree.

I have run both types of campaigns as well. I’m not blind to the differences. I have a different experience than you, and that’s led to a different point of view. Telling someone they’re blind because they don’t have the same exact view as you seems… myopic, at best.

Have you run any games that were designed specifically around little to no prep? D&D and similar games typically benefit from some kind of prep… a location map and key, NPCs and monsters with detailed stats, and so on.

But what about a game that doesn’t rely on those things? Do you have any experience with such games?

For the record, I agree with you that you can't make a determination without data on both sides (though you can explain what your understanding of what someone claimed appears to be). However, if you don't like games with little or no prep, there's no reason to play them, and you don't need a lot of experience to make that choice for yourself, or to tell others of your preferences.