Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 9332226" data-attributes="member: 6696971">On "I don't see people playing super cautiously in other games either," I guess it really depends upon the game.  I can tell you from 1984 through 1999 (and all the one shots since), every B/X Pawn Stance Dungeoncrawl game and every RC Hexcrawl game I ran featured developed and deployed S.O.P.s that optimized for risk profile and resource management.The 3.x FR game I GMed from 1999 playtest through 2004 featured cautious play until about level 4 and then relatively loose play as spellcasters overwhelmed play until about level 15 and then the threat amped up again and play became a giant collection of developed and deployed S.O.P.s (where the spellcasters were, of course, featured) from that point until the game ended at level 21.5e D&D?  Yes, I would imagine it doesn't lean cautious because of the baked-in power relationships between PCs and encounter budgets/threat level throughout the course of play.On 'set goals and go for them," I would need to know a whole lot more because I've been in these conversations where "set goals" might mean operationalized the hyper-generic, evolved play meta of D&D like "we have goals to murderhobo!"...or "will side/fetch quest for PC rez <only because the player of the PC didn't say they wanted to play a new character...if they did want to play a new character then no can do side/fetch quest-giver)."  Stuff like that isn't_exactly what I have in mind.I would need to know a lot more.  Something like a player who has picked:Class: Paladin of Kord (war, strength, storms)Goal:  The player has introduced a secret heresy upon play and wants to advance it.  They believe that the proper interpretation of Kord's scripture yields peace through strength and war only as last resort (but a decisive one).Making play about that?  Yes, that is what I have in mind.  We'll find out if they're right or wrong about the interpreation.  We'll find out if the schism leads to reformation of the faith or ruination or crazy collateral damage and status quo.  We'll find out of Kord is pleased or very much not.You've said a lot of things about your Blades games that makes me wonder what is exactly going on. * I mean, this might feel a small thing, but Black Lamps?  The Lampblacks, The Crows, and The Red Sashes are the three most foundational gangs in early play in Duskvol.  And it seems like one of, or the, primary Gang your Crew interacted with...and you didn't know their name (and how that told you their trade, their history, their motivations for crime)?  I mean, its just an observation, but that really makes it feel like the investment in play was not terribly high.  Its a little more strange given that the fundamental motivating factor of the Lambplacks is that they're called the Lampblacks because they were the members of the former lamp-lighters (and snuffers) guild for the city which turned to crime when they were replaced by electric lights.  Their name is their core conceit.  Its an odd thing in terms of attentiveness and investment into the game to misname your primary Faction Enemy whose name is basically their identity.  It would be one thing if it was just some rando name.  Like if you called The Crows The Ravens and they weren't your (or one of your) Crew's primary antagonist in the early game?  Ok, no big deal.  But your primary antagonist in the game is the ex-lamplighter (and snuffer; hence the name) guild that turned to crime after electroplasmic devices rendered their trade obsolete...hence their name and their name/trade-related reason for being a criminal gang now....and we misname them?Earlier (and I took no offense...but I certainly noted it), you said you felt like my description of what I care about in play (stakes-intensive challenge or conflict or both) and what I do not want table time spent on (any free roleplay that is color-heavy and affectation-heavy but conflict & stakes-free that goes beyond maybe 5 minutes at most) yielded something like "that seems like the fiction would be really lacking richness".  I can understand how my "color and affectation do not move The Needle of Enriched Play for me" statement would lead you to that assessment if you really care a lot about table time being spent to a fair degree on free roleplay wedded to color and affectation but decoupled from conflict and stakes.  But, what moves The Needle of Enriched Play for me is the plight and nature of the lamplighters guild, called The Lampblacks because of it, who have turned rogue after having their meaningful days' work and livelihood taken from them due to the advancement of technology.  Understanding that premise and motivation, highlighting it, advancing it, making it a cog in their representation in play (but absolutely central if the PCs are a Crew whose nature is to care about such working class grievances or maybe if we have a PC with the Vice of Obligation; the downtrodden)...and a means for bringing in things like revolt/revolution in Coalridge and related Crews (like The Lost)...that is what enriches play for me.Again, I'm not trying to be a jerk about that.  Maybe it was just a weird thing and that isn't happening in your home game (where players are forgetting the name of their primary Gang Enemy that also happens to be their actual former trade in the city...and is the foundational reason for their current status).  Maybe everyone knows and cares about the Lampblacks and their instantiation in your game is the GM "Bringing Duskvol to Life."  Maybe people have taken sides on the dramatic needs of the former lamplighters guild.  Maybe they just don't care about the labor class concerns or the proliferation of dangerous electroplasmic devices.  Who knows.  Its just a weird thing kind of like calling Luke Skywalker Sky Lukewalker or calling Gimlee Legolas for someone who has just watched Star Wars or read LotR and considers themselves invested as a consumer of the fiction.* And Harm being ubiquitous, healing slow, and therefore the game becomes turtley or cautious?  I mean, I don't even know what turtley or cautious means in terms of the structured play loop of Blades in the Dark.  What even happens?  You can't just opt out of doing stuff and the GM better be putting the crosshairs on individual PCs and bringing the heat in terms of Faction/Setting Clocks.  Players have to do stuff to deal with the game of perpetural spinning plates.  Turtling or bunkering down isn't an option.  Forward is the only way through.  The only thing I can think of is maybe the players pursue low Tier gangs, never punch above their belts, and really set up and pursue an abundance of Deception and Social Scores whereby muscle/physical obstacles are infrequent?  But...if that is so, then Recovery shouldn't be much of an issue?  And...even then...the GM's Faction Clocks, Entanglements, Crime Bosses, and the introduction of Rivals into Scores are going to bring threats into play that might manifest as Harm at some point?But beyond that?  Ubiquitous Harm and slow Recovery reads like a total tell that something is really, really, really amiss in your game.  If Harm is flying around in your game to a degree that its generating some kind of Blades in the Dark turtling (again, whatever that might be)...I just don't know?  Harm is only one of an enormous number of varying (and play dynamism-infusing) Consequences that a GM can mete out and it only applies in very particular, very telegraphed situations (and even in those situations there are often better, more compelling Consequences to mete out).  If Harm is that ubiquitous in your game, either (a) your GM is struggling with their creativity and dynamism or (b) your GM isn't clear on what  they're supposed to be doing or (c) the players are picking the most Assault-heavy and punch-above-your-belt sequences of Scores imaginable (which is hard to imagine...but I guess its possible).  And even then, the players have so many means to mitigate Harm (Armor/Loadout, Resistance, spreading it around with Protect when fictionally amenable and then that protector using Armor/Resistance, Special Armor for specific types, or playbook moves that throttle back Harm or specific types of it) before the old standard of trading Effect for better Position or deploying Loadout that improves one or the other (thereby throttling back prospective Harm).And Recovery is slow?  I mean....PCs each get 2 x DTAs every Downtime.  A fair number of Crews (2/3 of the games I've GMed) either (a) have a physicker in their Crew or (b) their Crew Contact or a PC Friend is a doctor/physicker, so there is no investment in DTAs beyond the Recovery DTAs spent on their clock.  However, the ones that don't have a physicker on their roster extended, can just have one PC (the one with a buffed Acquire an Asset playbook move) spend 1 x Acquire an Asset for an Expert, get a +1d assist from a Friend/Contact, and then maybe buy the result up.  Now, for the whole loop that rented physicker will give everyone 2 to 4 dice for their Recovery DTA.  Then you have the Infirmary Claim (+1d Recovery) and other various Advances/Features that buff Recovery.  And every time your Clock ticks 4 you reduce every single instance of Harm by one (not just 1 instance of Harm...maybe that is what you guys are doing to feel this "slow Recovery" you're citing?) so if you had 2 boxes each of Harm 2 and Harm 1 filled...now you only have Harm 1 from your Harm 2 injury types.  And further still, your ticks on new Recover clocks roll over (you don't lose ticks in excess of your current Clock...maybe that is another thing you guys are doing wrong?).In all the hours I've GMed Blades, I think I've seen a handful Cohorts perish via Harm and only 2 x PCs.  That's it.  And that is a metric eff-ton of hours in the last 7 years.  3 games from Tier 0 to Tier 4 or 5 and 6 others from Tier 0 up to between Tiers 1 and 3.Now I've lost a fair number of PCs in the Blades in the Dark games I've run (and had the equivalents of TPKs).  No one who has ever played in one of my games would ever consider me sentimental such that I go soft on PCs as a GM.  I'm fans of PCs, but I'm more than happy to see them into retirement, banishment, death, insanity, or whatever fate (honestly, those PC tales are overwhelmingly the most memorable for me).  But PCs in Blades just don't perish in any frequency due to Harm 4.  Now and again, yes.  But overwhelmingly, PCs in Blades typically perish because (a) everyone Stresses out of a Score and we need to figure out just what the hell happened (who is dying, who is going into a spirit bottle, who is incarcerated in Ironhook or worse, who was maybe an informant and now is an Enemy of the remaining Crew due to the setup, who has been sacrified to a Forgotten God/dess, who is in a Bluecoat interrogation room and being brutalized, who is being turned into a supernatural horror, or whatever else) to pick the game up where we left out or (b) you hit your 4th Trauma or (c) you go to Ironhook Prison permanently and we decide to leave you there or (d) you hit Trauma 3 and that seems like a fitting time for that character to retire out.</blockquote>

Verification