Not a Conspiracy Theory: Moving Toward Better Criticism in RPGs

[Campbell]

Blades in the Dark works differently than Apocalypse World. It lacks basic moves on the player side and has a different process on the GM side. There are some similarities in its approach, but the differences between them lead to a profoundly different play experience.

When trying to gain information about your environment in a way that the GM deems does not expose your character, we use the Gather Information mechanics which utilize Fortune roll (no position or effect) where what you roll determines the Effect level (the higher your roll the more you find out). This is almost always done in the Free Play phase.

 

[FrogReaver]

What is a "proper action"? Maybe that term has meaning in the context of BitD, but it's not a concept that has meaning for AW.

Here you go.

I'm not as familiar with the text of DW as I am with AW, but like the latter I believe the former relies on the key principle "If you do it, you do it." And a flipside of that is that a player is not obliged to do it. A player can deliberately declare an action that does not trigger a player-side move, and hence that leaves the GM free to make a move of their own (typically a soft move). Baker gives examples of exactly this in the AW rulebook, when he discusses an example of not going aggro (p 12), and when he contrasts Seduce/Manipulate with one character just asking another character for a favour (pp 198-9).

 

[Manbearcat]

Yes, it certainly lists GM actions. But the point I was making is that it doesn't really say 'GM - use these moves when the players don't make a proper action'. Of course I'm open to being wrong - I'm not nearly as familiar with the game as you.

No worries. Are you referring to "when/if I should make a soft move with a threat/NPC or when I should follow up with a hard move after a soft move has been made?" If so, the relationship between "telegraph rouble/initiate action > follow through" (and then the relevant text on frequency/type of moves made is found in NPC Threat Levels) is the relevant text.

But if you're looking for like a menu of moves under a particular threat header like you would find in Apocalypse World and its kindred games ( * I'm going to link what that looks like at the bottom for folks who aren't familiar)?

Yeah, Blades isn't like AW where you have a menu (* below) of archetypes, impulses, and threat moves laid out. You'll find the relevant text in the GM Goals (Bring Doskvol to Life) and then examples in the Strage Forces (for supernatural threats) and Factions part of the text. So, it says:

Give each location a specific aspect (crowded, cold, wet, dim, etc.). Give each important NPC a name, detail and a preferred method of​

problem solving (threats, bargaining, violence, charm, etc.). Give each action context—the knife fight is on rickety wooden stairs; the informant huddles among the wreckage of the statue of the Weeping Lady; the Lampblacks’ lair stinks of coal dust.​

What its getting at is formalized in the following:

The Red Sashes (Tier 2W): Originally an Iruvian school of swordsmanship, expanded into criminal endeavors.

Mylera Klev (leader, shrewd, ruthless, educated, art collector).

So we know Mylera is their leader. We know they've got a contingent of master swordsmen. We've got a bunch of tags for her that are "how she does things" and "what she is" and we've got the dramatic needs of The Red Sashes and the context of their place in Duskvol (including assets, allies, enemies, amongst other things.

Put it all together and Mylera should be a Master Level Threat who is Tier 2 but Quality 3 in anything related to her tags or her methods/needs. So if you're a Tier 2 PC and you're in a Social Score with Mylera? Your Position is going to be Desperate much of the time and I'm going to be inflicting Consequences on you/the situation that are an outgrowth/reflection of the tags above. I'm going to be shrewd. I'm going to be ruthless, I'm going to reveal her erudition and employ her art collector affinities strategically. And if it comes to blows because things go south? Well, know you've got a Quality 3 Master Swordman to deal with (who is ruthless).

---

* LANDSCAPES
A landscape threat can be natural or constructed, and whatever size you need. The Burn Flats, The Ruins of Las Uncles, a poison’d canal, the holding’s bustling marketplace, the warrens of a grotesque’s den in its depths.

Choose which kind of landscape:

• Prison (impulse: to contain, to deny egress)
• Breeding pit (impulse: to generate badness)
• Furnace (impulse: to consume things)
• Mirage (impulse: to entice and betray people)
• Maze (impulse: to trap, to frustrate passage)
• Fortress (impulse: to deny access)

Threat moves for landscapes:

• Push terrain.
• Reveal something to someone.
• Display something for all to see.
• Hide something.
• Bar the way.
• Open the way.
• Provide another way.
• Shift, move, rearrange.
• Offer a guide.
• Present a guardian.
• Disgorge something.
• Take something away: lost, used up, destroyed.

 

[soviet]

And, just to add. Mind control magic effects are almost never permanent, meaning that once they end, your character reverts back to baseline.

Which storygame mind control effects are permanent?

 

[soviet]

Not sure what this means.

Perhaps the point for here is that some games leave the psychological fully under the player's control while still having magic that can mind control. So saying magic is different than the psychological is 100% true in such contexts. It's interesting to me that there is always such resistance to this rather simple idea.


I don't think we need to go anywhere near that topic.


I gave you the most direction I could there. Others better able to assist have chimed in. I'm not particularly sure what more you want here?

Thanks for the reply. I'm just looking to understand what these mind control effects are, because I'm not sure what is being referred to. It's presented as a common issue with storygame play and I've never seen it.

 

[Imaro]

Perhaps the point for here is that some games leave the psychological fully under the player's control while still having magic that can mind control. So saying magic is different than the psychological is 100% true in such contexts. It's interesting to me that there is always such resistance to this rather simple idea.

I think this is the crux of the matter. It's a simple question of playstyle and preference of agency. Some players want the choice of how to express their character's mental state in all aspects... magical compulsion is not their character's actual mental state it is magic and thus different. Others want game rules that reinforce a particular behavior or behaviors to represent their character's mental states and feel this action enforcement is no different from a magical action enforcement, and the source doesn't make a difference to them.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think this is the crux of the matter. It's a simple question of playstyle and preference of agency. Some players want the choice of how to express their character's mental state in all aspects... magical compulsion is not their character's actual mental state it is magic and thus different. Others want game rules that reinforce a particular behavior or behaviors to represent their character's mental states and feel this action enforcement is no different from a magical action enforcement, and the source doesn't make a difference to them.

We often talk about what’s hidden in the GMs notes in these discussions, but a PCs mental state is often partially hidden in D&D as well. A player will often draw upon this not yet revealed to the table fictional mental state to make actual choices for his character. Much of the mental state is made up during the course of play but typically follows from previous fiction - even if it’s if the hidden variety.

 

[Imaro]

We often talk about what’s hidden in the GMs notes in these discussions, but a PCs mental state is often partially hidden in D&D as well. A player will often draw upon this not yet revealed to the table fictional mental state to make actual choices for his character. Much of the mental state is made up during the course of play but typically follows from previous fiction - even if it’s if the hidden variety.

I think I pretty much agree with this and its another thing the different types of mechanics affect... in the type of game where mental state is enforced with mechanics its more apparent why a character is doing something while in a more D&D approach it is often obfuscated in the ways you suggest above.

I don't think one or the other is better but I can see they provide different play experiences. In the first there is less mystery less trying (and perhaps failing) to figure someone's character out. It feels closer to when a show or book is being experienced from multiple viewpoints... I feel more privy to each character's story in play without the obfuscation as their motivations, feelings, etc. Are more known to me.

However the opposite allows for gross misjudgements of character, mysteries and a singular viewpoint through which things are filtered... and the ability for me to reveal or keep hidden what I choose to for my character. If the above is a multi-viewpoint story this is a story through the viewpoint of a singular character.

I honestly like experiencing both depending on mood but I feel they are playstyles that would be hard to nearly impossible to have in the same game... I wonder if there are any that provide both successfully?

 

[Lanefan]

D&D has so many ways (mostly spells) for players to lose agency over their chararcters while GMs have tons of agency, so players tend to be fiercly protective of what limited agency is afforded them over their characters. I'm not sure if the above mechanics would necessarily be a good fit for D&D and the sort of games that D&D often cultivates. More robust social mechanics? Sure. But there can be a fine line before anything involving social mechanics gets accused of being "mind control" mechanics in disguise.

While I see your point (and to some extent agree), my own issue with social mechanics is that they too often become an excuse to not roleplay things out at the table in character; and that excuse use can come from either or both the GM and the player(s). As in:

Player: "I try to bluff the guard that I have an invitation, so she'll let me in."
GM: "OK, make your Bluff* roll."
Dice are rolled, Bluff* succeeds, PC gains entry to the ball.

* - or Intimidate, Deception, Persuade, whatever mechanic best applies in that situation/system.

Not a word of in-character conversation between the PC and the guard. Both the player and the GM have (maybe even unintentionally) used the existence of that social mechanic as an excuse for not roleplaying the conversation out. Take away the mechanic and now there's no excuse not to roleplay it through.

In broader terms, social mechanics are an abstraction of something that IMO doesn't often - if ever - need abstraction. We can't swing swords at each other at the table, nor can we search for secret doors or climb castle walls or cast spells, so obviously those things need to be abstracted somehow. But we can sure the hell talk to each other using the words of our characters (including NPCs), so why does this need to be abstracted?

 

[Aldarc]

While I see your point (and to some extent agree), my own issue with social mechanics is that they too often become an excuse to not roleplay things out at the table in character; and that excuse use can come from either or both the GM and the player(s). As in:

Player: "I try to bluff the guard that I have an invitation, so she'll let me in."
GM: "OK, make your Bluff* roll."
Dice are rolled, Bluff* succeeds, PC gains entry to the ball.

* - or Intimidate, Deception, Persuade, whatever mechanic best applies in that situation/system.

Not a word of in-character conversation between the PC and the guard. Both the player and the GM have (maybe even unintentionally) used the existence of that social mechanic as an excuse for not roleplaying the conversation out. Take away the mechanic and now there's no excuse not to roleplay it through.

In broader terms, social mechanics are an abstraction of something that IMO doesn't often - if ever - need abstraction. We can't swing swords at each other at the table, nor can we search for secret doors or climb castle walls or cast spells, so obviously those things need to be abstracted somehow. But we can sure the hell talk to each other using the words of our characters (including NPCs), so why does this need to be abstracted?

There is a world of social mechanics in TTRPGs that exist beyond skill checks in D&D.