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

[hawkeyefan]

It is not a huge issue in practice, only a mild annoyance. Mostly it is now just the GM deferring to the player on this, to avoid bogging down the game, though discussions still happen sometimes. Which is fine, but sometimes I feel it diminishes the point of different skills.

Okay, if it's only a mild annoyance, then hey, keep on keeping on. But I would say when discussing the game, just keep in mind that what you're experiencing isn't uniform... if you feel like it's a "writers room" it's less about the text.

And like I said, as a GM I would just houserule the skill list completely and reassert the GM final-say on the matter. But I also fully understand why our GM is not doing this as this is their first campaign using this system.

Sure... I think there's a lot going on in Blades. And it takes some time to really get it to the point where it works really well and play remains challenging and engaging for all. Like anything, it takes time and experience. What makes it challenging is that I think many folks expect that their previous RPG experience is going to make it easier for them to run Blades... but often, previous experience may actually work against them a bit. Nothing that can't be overcome or dealt with, but it's there.

I still do not understand why it is designed this way though. Like most of the design decision in this game I get. Sometimes they might not be the ones I would make, but I see the value which they add. For this I don't.

BTW, and somewhat unrelatedly, one thing I am rather surprised this game lacks is some sort of circles/contacts/etc dice mechanic. I think it would benefit from it. Like you have that one ally you choose at character creation and you have background and stuff, but I think some of this could be gamified a bit more. Like for my low-class underground criminal junkie character I would like to have some sort of dice pools to represent his criminal and street contacts that could be rolled when seeking information or other aid from them. Similarly our noble could have some sort of dice pool for his upper-class contacts, our scientist for her academia contacts etc.

I don't disagree with you. In the games I've played, we've kind of just assumed that your background and the fact that characters are (or at least, tend to be) long time residents of the city... so they should have a network of friends and associates on whom they can rely. If a roll is needed, generally, it'd be Consort. If it's more about the contact's ability, then I'd go with 1d for a competent person and 2d for an expert (per the cohort rules).

We also tend to add new Friends and Rivals to the lists as they are introduced or made in play. There's no reason to keep those lists to only one entry on each.

 

[pemerton]

We also tend to add new Friends and Rivals to the lists as they are introduced or made in play. There's no reason to keep those lists to only one entry on each.

This is important in Torchbearer 2e.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Moving on.

There was quite a bit of talk about prepping, but I'd like to discuss what sort of systems are good for low prep, low myth approaches. Because I feel more trad systems with somewhat simulationistic assumptions aren't. Those I feel work best if you have solid "local myth," or fictional positionings decided. I'd imagine more narrative systems where the mechanics in part help to create the fictional reality on the spot are better fit for low prep approaches. Like I think D&D works better with somewhat solid prep, whereas Blades in the Dark requires there to be certain malleability of the fiction so that interesting consequences and such can be created on the spot.

 

[zakael19]

You can do Conflict resolution with binary pass/fail rolls (see: the way some people run 4e, or Baker talking about how to frame that out); and Blades actually has a ton of prep done. It's just in the core game itself! You get an entire world sitting there, all those factions, the implied setting stuff, the lists of entities and Tiers and Assets and potential consequences.

Blades is low prep because the game itself was first scaffolded to help you.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You can do Conflict resolution with binary pass/fail rolls (see: the way some people run 4e, or Baker talking about how to frame that out);

Yeah, sure. And that is interesting. Because it very often is paired with some sort of middle option for "success with consequences" or some such. But how necessary that actually is?

and Blades actually has a ton of prep done. It's just in the core game itself! You get an entire world sitting there, all those factions, the implied setting stuff, the lists of entities and Tiers and Assets and potential consequences.

Blades is low prep because the game itself was first scaffolded to help you.

Well, I don't think the world building as prep per se. I am thinking more on micro level. Like sure on macro level you have the factions and other world building stuff, but I mean like more on adventure level, so an a level of scores. Like I just don't think good prep for a Blades score or a D&D adventure is similar at all. For Blades you'd have some vague outlines and possible ideas, but it is way less concrete than that what I think is ideal for D&D, which is a lot of the central elements being nailed down.

 

[zakael19]

Like I just don't think good prep for a Blades score or a D&D adventure is similar at all. For Blades you'd have some vague outlines and possible ideas, but it is way less concrete than that what I think is ideal for D&D, which is a lot of the central elements being nailed down.

Well part of it is that Blades doesnt do adventures, yeah? If you walk D&D back to the scope of a Blades score you probably don't need much prep! A handful of obstacles, maybe some potential Dangers.

Daggerheart is basically D&D that asks "what if we abstracted back a lot of the assumptions we make about this" and like, sure, it has "degrees of success" but those aren't really affecting how much prep you do. The game telling you not to do so does.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Well part of it is that Blades doesnt do adventures, yeah? If you walk D&D back to the scope of a Blades score you probably don't need much prep! A handful of obstacles, maybe some potential Dangers.

I am not quite sure. In my D&D game I often have sessions that are basically short one session adventures, that are in score pretty similar to scores, and there still is rather concrete prep. Like I think for good D&D, the fictional situation needs to be far more specifically determined than for the Blades, for which it cannot be that tight as that closes down the narrative space for complications and stuff.

Daggerheart is basically D&D that asks "what if we abstracted back a lot of the assumptions we make about this" and like, sure, it has "degrees of success" but those aren't really affecting how much prep you do. The game telling you not to do so does.

But basically what I am trying to get at, is what low prep and low (local) myth requires from the system. What are the integral design elements that support that.

I am afraid I am not explaining this well. I am talking about the fictional reality outside of the characters being fixed by prep and the mechanics merely simulating the characters' interactions with it vs the fictional reality being somewhat nebulous and the mechanics acausally determining it on the fly. Like in D&D there is guardian demon watching over the treasure because that is what the prep says, but in the Blades that could be inserted in the fiction as a complication from some roll.

 

[zakael19]

Like in D&D there is guardian demon watching over the treasure because that is what the prep says, but in the Blades that could be inserted in the fiction as a complication from some roll.

I mean, when I've brought in consequences like that it followed from:

• the factions in play and their assets
• the playbooks/interests ("flags") of the players
• what we established via Gather Info
• what's already been established in the game
• my sketched prep of what I think might be interesting obstacles/complications for the situation

So like, you could do all that in D&D? And in fact, I have? It's also how I run very low-myth Daggerheart. Just gotta establish stakes before a roll.

 

[Fenris-77]

D&D and other dungeonesque games are an interesting use case. If we look at D&D or most OSR games and posited a well-developed city setting, like that of Blades with lots of strong theme and strong factions, I think that you could probably run a very similar game in a very similar way. Cities are over-populated by possibility compared to wilderness exploration or dungeon crawling. The factions, populace, and all the other elements are always right there for the taking in a way that makes wonderful sense. I think that makes it much easier for Blades to run the way it does.

Dungeons and the wilderness by comparison are much emptier of possible game elements. You can still make great use of factions of course, but the setting is fundamentally different. In D&D and OSR games both of these are seen as empty in a way the city is not. You can describe the wilderness, or the dungeon, in evocative terms of course but that detail doesn't jump up and do work like the game elements in a city do. I think the GM here has far less options that work as consequences that also don't (eventually) stretch verisimilitude. D&D has always seen the wilderness especially as 'empty' in a way that a city is not. The game elements, rather than making up the fabric of the setting itself, are foes and hazards that appear to challenge the group. That is a very different situation, and I think Blades would have to work awfully hard to do it as well as a good map and key OSR hexcrawl does.

I think that for the topic at hand that there is one real difference between these two cases. In Blades the players are aware of almost all the setting elements in the book (generally speaking) - all the wards, the inhabitants, the factions, much of the conflict and I think that Blades works in part by leveraging this player awareness. A big chunk of what frames the inclusion of a new element on a failed roll is all of these things that the players already know about and which thus help explain and contextualize that new element. That, plus the over-populated possibilities of the city generally, make Blades work very well.

Dungeon and wilderness games by comparison (generally speaking) posit a much larger set of unknowns and a much smaller set of knowns than Blades does with the city of Doskvol. This makes the inclusion of new elements on a failed roll a lot more complicated, both for the GM and the players. The GM has fewer fictional handholds to frame its introduction and the players have a much flimsier understanding of the setting at hand with which to contextualize those new elements.