Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8417092" data-attributes="member: 16814">This isn't exactly true.  The city in Blades is there so that you can't just murder and the hobo away from it -- you have to deal with it.  S&V appears to offer more movement freedom, but you still can't run from problems as they can easily still find and track and engage with you because your problems can move as easily as you.  The faction game works the same, really.[USER=6785785]@hawkeyefan[/USER] touched on this, but the "it's a trap" bit should have been explicit at the table.  You find out where the target is, but also that the target is aware you're looking for him and is ready for it!  That's the better move in this game's context.  One thing to remember in these games is that there is no secret GM backstory -- ie, bits of fiction the GM has written that are the truth of the game but aren't known to the players.  If there's a complication, it's one that's either hitting right now, so everyone knows it, or that you're immediately foreshadowing in an open way.  This is what drives the snowball.  If you announce the upcoming badness, and the PCs ignore it, then you just hit them with it as hard as you want.The foreshadowing in the boat wasn't in line with the game, either, because it wasn't clear it was a threat or something to be dealt with.  What happened here is that it appears you defaulted to D&D-esque play and so did your player, who was waiting for you to reveal more about the scene because that's what you do in D&D.  You need to frame these things immediately and hard -- I'd have started at or near the docks, probably by announcing the A-wing coming in low and hard for a fast fly-by, with the pilot visible looking at the PCs, then roaring off and circling for what looks like an attack run -- this frames an immediate threat that has to be reacted to, and is the core ideal of how you kick things off.I'm going to step back a moment here and ask where this sits in the context of the score?  The initial scene looking for the bad guy seems like freeplay/information gathering, and so should probably be running on a fortune mechanic -- although the outcomes there align either way, a 4-5 is some good some bad news.  But, after that, there should have been a score announced and an engagement roll made, which would have set up exactly how you should be looking to frame the initial ambush.  I'm unclear where we are in the game structure here.I think that S&V calls scores "jobs"?  Been a hot minute.So, in light of my discussion above about how the threat should have been more obviously framed, this part is moot.  However, it needs to be noted that actions like this are not reactionary, they are intentional.  Meaning for Attune to be used this way, the player needs to be declaring an action to determine this.  A tense standoff, with blasters drawn, is a good moment, where a player is using Attune to tell if the other side plans to shoot first.  It's not really a passive perception stand-in.  Nothing in S&V has a passive score corollary, except resistance rolls if viewed through a squint.Yeah, I don't disagree with this.  You need to put the danger/obstacle front and center and clear, and not hide what a consequence is.  These things have to be table facing at all times.  The only things "secret" would be any prep for possible ideas of complications or an NPC that haven't been used yet, and these need to be held lightly (ie, not things that will be used but that might be used and maybe not as originally intended -- prep is more like brainstorming so play aides in S&V/Blades than pre-story like in D&D).Yeah, you should have called for a check here -- how is the PC getting to the roof?  Carefully or running full tilt or using Force jumps?  Anything the PCs are doing under pressure or threat needs to be a check.  Remember, it's not the plan you have that drives the game, but the result of the PC's actions that drive the game. Again, introducing more threats needs to be because of actions.  The nature of the game will generate all the drama you need, if you trust it and let it.  Putting a finger on the scales, like adding further complications that aren't from checks, needs to be heavily scrutinized and only rarely done.  I'm leaving that like this because there may be a good point somewhere for doing so, but I'd be extremely hesitant to do this.</blockquote>

Verification