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

[zakael19]

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.)

Yeah, @hawkeyefan and myself both noted that. Generally if you want to do something that's just like, harder to pull off based on tehfiction? It's going to affect your position and effect - you'll get less, and it'll be more dangerous.

Want to prowl around the outside of a skirmish to sink a dagger in the back? You can do that, but your effect may be Limited (it's going to take a bit, people are moving a lot, how do you get the drop?); and/or your position Desperate (if they notice you, you're caught up in a melee against a bunch of folks with a dagger now!).

 

[Umbran]

Yeah, @hawkeyefan and myself both noted that. Generally if you want to do something that's just like, harder to pull off based on tehfiction? It's going to affect your position and effect - you'll get less, and it'll be more dangerous.

That sounds like double, or triple, jeopardy.

It is harder to do, and you get less for it, and it is more dangerous for you?

 

[zarionofarabel]

Interesting, I didn't know I was a superhero?

And that is why I said this:

The reason I say that is because half the site is debate for contrarian sakes.

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.

It definitely isn't that I can't see it, it's that it doesn't exist. Like I said, from watching lots of AP videos for the last few months (it has become my primary form of entertainment). Most AP videos are D&D 5e, most games are very poorly paced and inconsistent, and most games feature lots of prep as that is the more prevalent way to do it. The combination of those things means that most prepped games are inconsistent and have poor pacing despite being prepped. Which totally dispoves your argument that prepped games are always more consistent and have better pacing than improv games. It's what Fenris said, all the prep in the world doesn't help pacing if the GM doesn't pace it properly, and if the prep itself is inconsistent then having prep won't magically make it more consistent. Whereas if the improv GM is good at pacing things and is good at keeping things consistent, then their game will have better pacing and consistency than a prepped game that lacks such things. Simply put, your particular methodology isn't objectively better than any other methodology.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

I am building rapport with them in attempt to get them see things in my way, consort or sway?

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.

Yes, but this also is not a game that uses battlemaps (or at least we don't) so things like positioning are somewhat vague. And of course the person who wants to shoot, will say that they move at the back of the space when trouble arises. But are you saying that shooting at relatively short distance, when melee is about to happen or is already happening, but when the shooter is not himself in melee is hunt, not skirmish? Sounds reasonable enough to me, but I also do not think this is information that is in the rules and I think equally reasonable case could be made for skirmish.

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

Right. Was that so hard to admit? And I think the delineation of the skills is an example of that.

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.

Not sure it happens more often than not. But it happens way more often than in any other game I've played. And to me it is obviously because the skills are intentionally designed with overlap. And to this day no one has managed to explain to me why they're designed like this, especially if it is like you claim that this is not supposed to me an avenue of skilled play.

So then why not just do that?

Because that's not what the rules say.

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.

Because super often it is not clear what skill you "should" use. So why would you not choose the better one?

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.

Like your literal example of showing how what skill to use being clear, is open for debating that another skill is actually more appropriate. You say this doesn't happen, and your own example has it happening! And yeah prowl might be a bit of a stretch, but it also says you can waylay an enemy in the midst of battle with it, even if skirmish might be better, so should be doable, at least at worsened position (which, if you have several more points of prowl than skirmish, is what you should do.)

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.

In the beginning of our campaign our heat got out of hand, we had no money and downtime actions were scarce. But we've understood how the mechanics work since then and have become much better at managing stuff. Claims that make money, playbook abilities that grant downtime activities, gang traits that mitigate heat, and simply just getting better at working the system. And of course in any game that goes on for while the characters will accumulate some stash, so a situation where you simply cannot do a downtime activity just is not something that can happen.

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.

But I am also the player making the action declaration, so by the flavour of my action declaration I can influence the fiction, thus what skill the best applies.

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.

No one is mitigating every risk. But intelligent players will see the mechanics, and understand which tactics will increase the chances of success and which mitigate (some) risks. Am I supposed to take such things into account? Yes or no?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That sounds like double, or triple, jeopardy.

It is harder to do, and you get less for it, and it is more dangerous for you?

It is usually just either less effective or more dangerous, not both. It cannot be more difficult, as the "difficulty" is just based on your skill level, thus if your unoptimal but still applicable skill is significantly better than the optimal skill, you should probably still try to use it.

 

[zakael19]

That sounds like double, or triple, jeopardy.

It is harder to do, and you get less for it, and it is more dangerous for you?

No, position / effect is how we communicate your fictional position (how much risk is there in doing this), and what will you get from it. “Harder to do” almost never enters the equation from the GM side, that’s entirely player-dice-pool related.

If you say you want to punch your way into a building using Wreck, the GM may go “yeah I mean it’s a brick building - Limited or Zero effect, and some pretty good risk of harm to yourself here? So risky?” And then the player goes “NO I WILL GET THROUGH THE WALL but also I forgot about my hammer to
Boost my effect so uh that’s at least standard right?”

Etc

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

Sure. If stating preferences was all he was doing, then you’d be spot on.

But that’s not all he did, is it? He said anyone who didn’t agree with him was blind.

If I’d said anyone who thinks prep results in a more consistent world is blind… I expect you’d quickly point out how that’s just my opinion and so on.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure. If stating preferences was all he was doing, then you’d be spot on.

But that’s not all he did, is it? He said anyone who didn’t agree with him was blind.

If I’d said anyone who thinks prep results in a more consistent world is blind… I expect you’d quickly point out how that’s just my opinion and so on.

Well, you do know me . Fair enough.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I am building rapport with them in attempt to get them see things in my way, consort or sway?

I don’t know. Do you already know this person? How are you building rapport? How much time do you have to do that?

Without knowing all that, I think Sway is the obvious way to go.

Yes, but this also is not a game that uses battlemaps (or at least we don't) so things like positioning are somewhat vague. And of course the person who wants to shoot, will say that they move at the back of the space when trouble arises. But are you saying that shooting at relatively short distance, when melee is about to happen or is already happening, but when the shooter is not himself in melee is hunt, not skirmish? Sounds reasonable enough to me, but I also do not think this is information that is in the rules and I think equally reasonable case could be made for skirmish.

I think the GM needs to be a bit more active in presenting meaningful choices to the players. As you say, there’s no battle grid. So in the absence of that, the GM should introduce relevant details.

I mean, if there’s nothing preventing someone from staying at a distance from the fight and then firing at a target… sure, why not go with Hunt?

Right. Was that so hard to admit? And I think the delineation of the skills is an example of that.

Hard to admit? No, not at all. But again… I’ve seen plenty of games that didn’t face the confusion that yours does.

Is it hard to admit that some of the fault is your group’s?

Not sure it happens more often than not. But it happens way more often than in any other game I've played. And to me it is obviously because the skills are intentionally designed with overlap. And to this day no one has managed to explain to me why they're designed like this, especially if it is like you claim that this is not supposed to me an avenue of skilled play.

I already did explain it… it’s to promote creative play.

I also didn’t say it wasn’t related to skilled play.

Because that's not what the rules say.

Yeah, but you can adjust if you want. Also, you seem to be ignoring a lot of what’s in the book already.

Because super often it is not clear what skill you "should" use. So why would you not choose the better one?

Because it doesn’t fit the situation. Because you follow the fiction first and use the Action that makes the most sense.

Like your literal example of showing how what skill to use being clear, is open for debating that another skill is actually more appropriate.

I donMt think it’s more appropriate. I said an argument could be made.

You say this doesn't happen, and your own example has it happening!

No. I said that the game doesn’t always grind to a halt so a decision on how to proceed can be determined. I never said that there is not overlap in some of the actions.

It’s just not an issue for my groups at all.

And yeah prowl might be a bit of a stretch, but it also says you can waylay an enemy in the midst of battle with it, even if skirmish might be better, so should be doable, at least at worsened position (which, if you have several more points of prowl than skirmish, is what you should do.)

Waylaying someone in a battle is different than facing someone in a duel.

In the beginning of our campaign our heat got out of hand, we had no money and downtime actions were scarce. But we've understood how the mechanics work since then and have become much better at managing stuff. Claims that make money, playbook abilities that grant downtime activities, gang traits that mitigate heat, and simply just getting better at working the system. And of course in any game that goes on for while the characters will accumulate some stash, so a situation where you simply cannot do a downtime activity just is not something that can happen.

Right. And I’m telling you that the GM should likely ramp up the pressure so that resource usage is not something that never matters.

But I am also the player making the action declaration, so by the flavour of my action declaration I can influence the fiction, thus what skill the best applies.

Flavour of your action declaration is not what I’m talking about.

No one is mitigating every risk. But intelligent players will see the mechanics, and understand which tactics will increase the chances of success and which mitigate (some) risks. Am I supposed to take such things into account? Yes or no?

To some extent, sure. But players are also meant to follow the fiction, embrace danger, and not be a weasel.

I’d personally filter whatever I wanted my character to do through those principles, and then of any options that might remain, choose what was most advantageous for me.

 

[Umbran]

No, position / effect is how we communicate your fictional position (how much risk is there in doing this), and what will you get from it.

I don't see what's "No" in this. You are saying that for the the character is getting a lesser result for a greater risk.

I'm just noting that each of those, individually, is a disincentive, and it sounded like those were getting stacked.

“Harder to do” almost never enters the equation from the GM side, that’s entirely player-dice-pool related.

Ah. Using the phrase "harder to do" in an idiosyncratic way. Most everywhere else, that'd mean some variant of "lower odds of success on the dice."