Blades in the Dark

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sat Apr 25, 2015 12:30 am

Orion wrote:Pros
--More player agency than Apocalypse World

Review of Having Two Pennies to Rub Together:
Pros
--More money than literally nothing

Orion · Post by **Orion** » Sat Apr 25, 2015 7:55 am

I'm not going to review this quick start thing in order. It's a bit jumbled, which is inevitable for a quick start, but honestly the organization is baffling even in that context. I'm going to start reviewing by system and content, then review individual pages that didn't get mentioned, mostly the DM advice. I'm about to start with the dice mechanics, so let me start by giving them mad props for agreeing with me about the purpose of dice. In a discussion about when to switch over from freeforming to rolling dice, they raise the question of why to use dice at all. They don't say we use dice to settle disagreements. Actually, they say that talking things out tends to build consensus, and that consensus is actually the problem. The point of the dice is to surprise the players by making things happen they wouldn't have thought of or agreed on if left to their own devices.

Actions and Effects

Actions and Effects are the most important things on your character sheet. A traditional game would call them "skills" and "stats," but here we are. Stats are used as saving throws, and also to scale the benefits of a successful skill check. They explicitly draw an analogy to D&D hit and damage. In this game, you might roll a Mayhem check to punch somebody, then a Force check to see how much damage you did. You might also roll a Cipher check to consult city records, and then an Insight check to see how much damage you did... to your ignorance, or something. Stats and Skills both run from 0-4, theoretically, but starting characters are capped at 2.

The "Effects" are Force, Finesse, Influence, Insight, Maneuver, and Will, or in D&D terms: Strength, Dexterity, Charisma, Intelligence, Dexterity, and Charisma. That feels like a good set-up for an all rogues game. There are no mechanics that explicitly call for a specific Effect, so which ones are good will vary from table to table, but I expect Maneuver to suck at most tables and Influence to be largely redundant to Will. That would leave Force, Finesse, Insight, and Will as the big 4. This matches up nicely with the 4 skill categories. There are 16 actions. They're subdivided into Blade, Book, Cloak, and Mask skills, but this is mostly irrelevant. 15 of them are verbs. "Mayhem" is not a verb, but it's still somehow an Action. EDIT: It's pretty clear what most of the skills do, save for "Secure." You're supposed to use Secure to secure entry into places protected by locks and traps. Yes, really.

There are two types of roll in this game: Action rolls and Effect rolls. The first is a pretty good the mechanic; the second is a kind of bad mechanic. According to the book, the action roll answers 2 questions: "Do you accomplish your action?" and "how much trouble are you exposed to when you do this?" Effect rolls, on the other hand, "determine the scope of your action." That is a pretentious and inaccurate way to describe it; they clearly mean to say that it determines the "degree" or maybe "extent." This also means that they lied when they said the action check told you whether you succeed at your action. Suppose you want to murder some dude. That's cool, you find some way to get into his room and then you make a Murder check. You succeed! Now it's time to make an Effect roll (Force or Finesse, probably) to find out how murdered he is. You're very likely to discover that he is "Pretty murdered, but not like completely murdered," which suggests to me that you in fact failed to murder him. They seem to realize this is a problem, so they tell the MC to go ahead and not call for effect rolls when they don't want to. They say that Effect rolls can also be used to resist damage, but in fact the mechanic for that is different and they might as well have simply written up "resistance rolls."

To make either kind of check, you roll a dice pool and look for the highest number. Results are grouped into 4 tiers: 1-3, 4-5, 6, and two 6s. For actions, you roll your Action and maybe get a +1 background bonus, and maybe get -1 for each injury or other bad condition that hampers you. For effect, you roll your Effect and maybe get a +1 equipment bonus. Either roll can get +1 from a devil's bargain, +1 for backup from another PC, and a -1 for difficulty is the MC feels like it. After working out how many dice to roll, you need another piece of information that tells you how to interpret the dice. For an action, this is called "position" and is extremely important; for effects this is called "scale" and usual doesn't come up. I really like the "position" mechanic. It's a good way to do abstract "advantage" and "disadvantage" with a sensible reason not to self-stack, and it's a good way to regulate retries. By default, PCs are always in "risky" position. They can get a "controlled" position if they have lots of time or contingencies, or the opposition sucks. They can be desperate if they've already screwed up, they're trying something crazy, or the opposition is super elite. The results look like this:


	Controlled	Risky	Desperate
6-pair	Succeed with +1t* effect, and an unspecified future benefit	Succeed with +1t effect	Succeed
6	Succeed	Succeed, or succeed with +1t effect but with danger	Succeed, but with danger
4-5	Succeed with -1t effect, or re-roll as a risky check	Succeed, but with danger	Fail, with danger. You can retry but it's desperate
1-3	Fail. Try a different skill or retry this one on risky	Fail, with danger. Try a different skill or retry this one on desperate	Fail, with danger; you get -1t to resist; all rolls on this problem are now desperate, even with other skills

Weirdly, rolling 4-5 on controlled is worse than rolling 4-5 on risky, but otherwise, I like this a lot. As you've noticed, some of these results indicate "danger." If you get danger, the MC is supposed to describe a bad thing happened to you. And I mean really describe. The MC is supposed to narrate the enemy thugs grabbing you, throwing you to the ground, and kicking your ribs in before asking you to roll to avoid beatings. I'm not sure how I feel about that. It has its advantages, but it's weird. Anyway, you can either suck up whatever grisly fate the MC just gave you, or you can spend stress to negate it. You have a maximum of 8 stress, and resisting danger costs 0-4 of it. To find out how much, you roll one of your Effects. After the roll, you choose whether to pay up the stress or suck up the consequence. Note that the cost has nothing to do with the danger itself. Paying to avoid instant death costs the same as paying to avoid a bruise. If you choose not to pay, you might get one of those "lasting conditions" that gives a -1 to some actions until cured, or you might just be put in a bad situation that requires further actions to escape. If you spend all 8 stress, you get a permanent "trauma." Trauma actually makes you better at healing stress between jobs, but if you get 4 trauma your character is forced to retire. After you take the trauma, you reset to 0 stress. You can either continue playing through the mission, or get an automatic free escape from the rest of the job.

This all looks like it should work pretty well, although again there are some quirks. They recommend using the degree of danger to differentiate levels of enemy. So, if you roll Mayhem against some thugs, the danger is they grapple you or break your arm, while if you roll Mayhem against trained assassins, the danger is that you die. This kind of makes sense, but it means that you are never injured when fighting elite enemies, and so you will never win a duel against the swordmaster who kill your father but crawl away bleeding. Which is weird. Anyway, I'm going to leave the review here for tonight.

*They didn't have a concise or consistent notion to describe modifiers to the "tier of effect," so I'm inventing one. "+1d" means "roll an extra die"; "+1t" means "treat 1-3 as 4-5, 4-5 as 6, and 6 as pair of 6."

Mistborn · Post by **Mistborn** » Sat Apr 25, 2015 11:47 am

Wait so was this really just another bear world thread all along? Maybe there are no quantum bears but the failure state is still coming from the GMs rectum. It sounds fucking unbearable.

Orion · Post by **Orion** » Sat Apr 25, 2015 12:59 pm

Name a game where that ain't so.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Sat Apr 25, 2015 1:15 pm

Most of the rolls in most of the games people actually play. If you fail an attack roll in D&D, that behavior is defined. If you succeed an attack roll in D&D, that behavior is defined. Same for saving throws. The skill system obviously ventures into make shit up territory depending on the skill (skills like balance, climb, jump, escape artist, swim, tumble, use magic device being fairly well defined, stealth and social skills being far more make-shit-up). But for a considerable portion of the game there are rules that tell you what a failure is, rules that tell you what a success is, and rules that tell you how to differentiate a failure from a success.

Longes · Post by **Longes** » Sat Apr 25, 2015 1:16 pm

Lord Mistborn wrote:Wait so was this really just another bear world thread all along? Maybe there are no quantum bears but the failure state is still coming from the GMs rectum. It sounds fucking unbearable.

I'm beary disappointed in you. The beary first post of the thread says:

The idea sounds neat, and the rules look reminiscent of Apocalyse World

Mind you, Silva didn't actually know the rules at the time, but how could you pawsibly not notice that this is a bear world thread? Of course the threads get teddieous by now, but you should be prebeared for this.

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Sat Apr 25, 2015 3:52 pm

OH FUCK

MY EYES

LONGES, YOU SON OF A BITCH

Longes · Post by **Longes** » Sat Apr 25, 2015 4:00 pm

Maxus wrote:OH FUCK

MY EYES

LONGES, YOU SON OF A BITCH

Bear with me. Either this grizzly thread will soon be over, or we'll all die and go to pandamonium.

Mistborn · Post by **Mistborn** » Sat Apr 25, 2015 4:04 pm

Longes wrote:Bear with me. Either this grizzly thread will soon be over, or we'll all die and go to pandamonium.

Longes · Post by **Longes** » Sat Apr 25, 2015 4:07 pm

I'm breaking down beariers in the field of bear puns.

silva · Post by **silva** » Sat Apr 25, 2015 4:08 pm

Nice analysis so far. I managed to get a copy of the QS with the help of a forum member (

), but I would like to keep hearing more of Orion opinions on the game, as his views seem pretty unbiased about the "World" issue.

Some points I would like to comment:

1) I think the explanation of actions and effects are indeed confusing. The author should have called effect rolls "degree of success" or something similar. Right now its causing a lot of confusion around the game community.

2)

Orion wrote:Weirdly, rolling 4-5 on controlled is worse than rolling 4-5 on risky, but otherwise, I like this a lot

At first I found this weird too. But then I realized that the way it is now makes things more in-line with World games philosophy of "hard choices" and risk/reward. And as most rolls will be on Risky mode, it makes sense that it contains the most critical choices. For good or worse, World games dont try to simulate reality, they try to inject hard choices and follow up with meaningful/dramatic consequences, generating a snowball of cause-effect and colorful events (you seem to have nailed it in your comment on "the point of rolling dice" by the way).

But then, its a work in progress. I wouldnt be surprised if the author change this in the final version.*

* he already confirmed a change: the last advancement condition in the char sheets will be swapped to something like "When you act in your self-interest and it hinders the crew in some way".

Orion · Post by **Orion** » Sat Apr 25, 2015 4:45 pm

silva wrote:he already confirmed a change: the last advancement condition in the char sheets will be swapped to something like "When you act in your self-interest and it hinders the crew in some way".

That's terrible. The current version is much better.

silva · Post by **silva** » Sat Apr 25, 2015 5:29 pm

The current version reads: " Express your relationship to the crew. Why are you here ?"

It looks too ambiguous and abusable for me. I can see a lot of players transforming this in a gratuitous xp step for every section. Besides it, I dont see it generating many interesting things fiction-wise. The new condition on the other hand (" Act in sef-interest while hindering the group") looks less ambiguous, potentially more interesting fiction-wise, while more dangerous and thus more sparingly used (otherwise the crew will come down on you). But then I didnt really playtested it, so its all hypothetical at this point.

*Edit*

Oops, disregard all this. The FAQ below says the correct phrase is this:

Blades in the Dark FAQ wrote:Q: The fourth condition “Express your relationship to the crew” left us totally puzzled.

A: For the fourth playbook advancement item, I'm changing it to this: "Express your character's flaws, obsessions, secrets, or shortcomings."

So now you get XP when you ditch your lookout post to go drink. 

FAQ here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_kr ... sp=sharing. Besides clarifying some things, it brings blurbs for all the factions on the crew sheet.

Mask_De_H · Post by **Mask_De_H** » Sat Apr 25, 2015 8:58 pm

You started this shit, so grin and bear it.

Leress · Post by **Leress** » Sat Apr 25, 2015 9:04 pm

Mask_De_H wrote:You started this shit, so grin and bear it.

Okay, I think we should put the bear puns on pause.

angelfromanotherpin · Post by **angelfromanotherpin** » Sat Apr 25, 2015 9:19 pm

Yeah, they're getting a bit overwroarght.

Mistborn · Post by **Mistborn** » Sat Apr 25, 2015 9:38 pm

Orion · Post by **Orion** » Sun Apr 26, 2015 7:57 pm

Effect Rolls

"The default case is an obstacle which has 4-segments of scope." This is the bolded key sentence in the writeup on effect rolls. Note that they've copied Vincent Baker's habit of hyphenating things for no-reason and that "scope" makes no sense in this context. Also note that the increments of effect are called "segments" because they are segments on a clock. Everything in this game is clocks. Apocalypse World used some clocks, but this game should be called Clockwork World because they are absolutely everywhere, even where they're very unhelpful. Using clocks to track the progress of major plots makes sense because it evokes stuff like the defcon nuclear war clocks, and because they are associated with passing time, and because you only rarely have to do the mechanical operation of updating them. This game has clocks for everything, 4-segment and 6-segment usually, but also 2, 3, and 12. The author admits that they don't always bother to draw the actual clocks for the default 4-point obstacle, and that they draw 2 6 segment clocks instead of a 12 segment. Considering how stupid I would feel drawing a 2 segment clock I have no idea why they don't just admit that this symbolism was taken too far and walk away. Anyway: They say you can use 2 or 3 segments for easy locks, trusting marks and so on. The minimum roll is 1 segment, so there's no 1-segment clocks; you just don't call for a roll. They offer examples of 6, 8, and 12 segment clocks for suspicious marks, veteran guards, elaborate multi-stage challenges like sequences of guard patrols, and more ambitious actions. There is a problem with arbitrary-difficulty systems which I haven't yet found an elegant way to express, but for the moment I'll call it "unanchored relativism." Sometimes they appear to fall victim to it. Harder clocks, you see, can be "used to highlight something remarkable" or for when players do something "the hard way." I quote:

For instance, if the player's goal is "I shove him back and run away down the stairs," that might be a 4-segment obstacle. If they say, "I slip past his defense, kill him, and run down the stairs" might be a 6-segment clock (or more).

It makes sense that killing a guy and then escaping would be more difficult than just escaping. If you start from the perspective that a PC needs to escape, and they're in a situation where escaping would be a challenge, then you'll set that as the default 4-point obstacle, and then bump it up to 6 for the killing. On the other hand, killing a dude could itself be an obstacle, and if he's not well-guarded or an elite fighter, it should also be a 4-segment task. Once you've killed the guy, I shouldn't think it would be difficult to escape from him. It does say that the MC should disclose before the player rolls their action how many effect segments they need.

Anyway, you make your effect roll and then mark from 1 to 6 segments of progress. (Specifically, 1, 2, 4, or 6 for 1-3, 4-5, 6, or double-6). This means that you need a 6 on your effect roll to complete a standard objective in one go. You should generally have 2 points in your stat, and at least one more die from tools, backup, or a devil's bargain, but a starting character can only roll 5 dice at best. That means that more than half the time, an action roll "success" doesn't mean you actually succeeded at the task. They should really have said that the action roll determines whether you progress. This also means that there is a huge difference between cases where the MC skips the effect roll (which they encourage you to do while learning or for things you don't care about) and cases where the MC rules is a "default obstacle."

What they really should have done was presented this as an obstacle-based system rather than a task-based system. Example scenarios have stuff like a mansion with a 6-point "guards" clock. For a challenging aspect of a set piece, it makes sense for the team to need multiple actions to resolve it. Using Prowl to get in position and Murder to eliminate them, or Sway to lure some away and Prowl to sneak past the rest, or other hybrid strategies makes sense. The problem is when it's not the MC saying "here's a challenge, what's your plan to deal with it," but the PC saying "here's an action I want to do." The example of play implies that once you've rolled an action and applied progress, you can't simply repeat the action; you need to start a new action based on a new skill. This limitation makes sense, but it's the major reason that PC "success" can feel like failure. If you wanted me to roll multiple Murder checks in order to increase the chance of failure to make the murder feel difficult, that's fine. If I roll a "successful" Murder but the target is still alive and I now have to find a new way to deal with them, that seems an awful lot like a failed murder. It also bothers me to think about using a clock for actions that are pretty discrete. I don't really know how you would get partial progress on an action like "shove someone and go downstairs." My final complaint is that when you don't know how many checks a task will take to resolve, it's hard to put them in the right order. If I want to sneak into some guy's room and kill him, I'm fine rolling Murder. If you tell me I'll need two checks, I'm fine rolling Stalk and Murder, or Secure and Murder, or Sway and Murder, or Murder and Mayhem. But, if I roll Murder first and am then told I need a second roll, there's really not a lot of options. I'm not going to Stalk him at that point. I mean, maybe I do. Maybe we assume the murder is only partially successful because he's made a run for it, and if I can make a roll to catch him we can simply assume the stabbity part works out, but it's awkward.

TLDR: It makes a lot of sense to have multi-part objectives, and in some cases for players to roll and find out if they solved a problem fully or only partially. However, they need to think a lot more carefully about when and how to use these mechanics and about how to frame them.

silva · Post by **silva** » Sun Apr 26, 2015 9:12 pm

I agree that Murder skill should be called something else. It doesnt make sense to say "Ok, you succeeded at your Murder test, but it has not finished the guard, so, huh, he is not murdered yet". Some observations follow, otherwise keep it coming!

Orion wrote:What they really should have done was presented this as an obstacle-based system rather than a task-based system

I dont think Blades (or Apocalypse World before it) could be classified as task-based resolution. "Intention-based" seems a better descriptor. Though your "obstacles-based" is not bad for the specific case of Blades.

*Edit*: found the paragraph below, which just reinforce the "intention-based" idea:

(from Pg 18, BitD)
"Here's an aspect of the game that may be interesting if you've played other RPGs. In Blades, the GM doesn't decide the steps needed to kill Tress. The GM doesn't say, "Okay, first you need to roll Prowl to sneak in. Okay, now you need to roll Secure to pick the lock," etc. The player decides what the steps are, by saying what their character wants to accomplish and how they do it, which determines the action and effect rolls. The player says, "I don't want any witnesses, so I'll Prowl around back and sneak in." They set the goals and go after them."

The example of play implies that once you've rolled an action and applied progress, you can't simply repeat the action; you need to start a new action based on a new skill.

What led you to have this understanding ? I dont remember reading this in the document.

*Edit* found this passage, which seems to corroborate my undesrtanding that you could, in fact, keep repeating rolls (emphasis mine):

(from Pg 18, BitD)
"Maybe the GM imagines that Tress's modest security is only a 2-segment clock (this is just in her mind, she doesn't even bother to write it down). But if Arlyn rolls diminished Finesse effect (1 segment) when she secures entry then maybe the GM steps in and says, "Heh, okay. The lock on her door is modest, but not that modest. Let's say there's 1 segment left to go. Want to keep picking the lock or do something else?"

My final complaint is that when you don't know how many checks a task will take to resolve, it's hard to put them in the right order. If I want to sneak into some guy's room and kill him, I'm fine rolling Murder. If you tell me I'll need two checks, I'm fine rolling Stalk and Murder, or Secure and Murder, or Sway and Murder, or Murder and Mayhem. But, if I roll Murder first...

I think you answered your own question here, no ? If the player declare he wants to "sneak in the room and murder the sleeping person inside", then he first does a sneaking test followed by a murdering one, right ? Perhaps assigning a default clock (4-segments) for the apparently more difficult test (sneaking in) and no clock at all for the easier one (murdering a sleeping person). Do you think this would make sense ?

Aryxbez · Post by **Aryxbez** » Sun Apr 26, 2015 10:54 pm

Leress wrote:Okay, I think we should put the bear puns on pause.

Most preferably, I'd rather not this thread gets closed through the spamming of such faff when there's a "review" in progress actually looking at the merits/flaws of the game itself. It's one thing if it's just Silva just adulating all over a game with the silly cult-like buzzwords he seems to employ ("color", Hard Choice, "intention-based" etc).

Silva wrote:But if Arlyn rolls diminished Finesse effect (1 segment) when she secures entry then maybe the GM steps in and says, "Heh, okay. The lock on her door is modest, but not that modest. Let's say there's 1 segment left to go. Want to keep picking the lock or do something else?"

I'm not sure how one "rolls" that effect, seems to imply that it makes your check's final result 1 less effective? Otherwise it sorta sounded like the PC used an ability to get through a check, and the DM forces another roll because they used their own abilities to make it easier than anticipated. Sometimes PC's will bypass your obstacles easier than thought, just deal with it and move on, don't pad the BS out.

silva · Post by **silva** » Sun Apr 26, 2015 11:12 pm

Aryxbez wrote:I'm not sure how one "rolls" that effect, seems to imply that it makes your check's final result 1 less effective? Otherwise it sorta sounded like the PC used an ability to get through a check, and the DM forces another roll because they used their own abilities to make it easier than anticipated. Sometimes PC's will bypass your obstacles easier than thought, just deal with it and move on, don't pad the BS out.

If you read the whole citation, you'll see the GM had already determined the test was a 2-segment clock. He didn't create another segment just to bullshit the player, if that's what you suspected.

TiaC · Post by **TiaC** » Sun Apr 26, 2015 11:12 pm

Here's my "Hard choices" mechanic, tell me what you think Silva.

Whenever an actor fails a test, they can opt to retry. However, if they choose to do so, the GM may kick them in the nuts.

silva · Post by **silva** » Mon Apr 27, 2015 12:33 am

I'm curious to see what Orion think of the teamwork rules. I'm totally on the wall about them.

Orion · Post by **Orion** » Mon Apr 27, 2015 2:28 am

Arxybez,

They explicitly invoke attack & damage rolls from D&D combat as an example. The idea is that the game is made up of obstacles, and those obstacles have hit points which are called "segments." You may one roll to hit the obstacle, and another roll to see how much damage you do. Because enemies don't get their own actions (only the players roll dice or take actions), enemy attacks get resolved during the player's to-hit roll; you find out both whether you hit and whether your enemy hits back at the same time, then roll your own damage if you hit, and roll soak if you got hit. So, if you're fist-fighting a thug, you make a Mayhem roll. Results you hit, miss, hit and be hit, or miss and be hit. You also might get a bonus or penalty on your damage roll. If you get hit, you roll a soak, and then either lose that much stress, or accept the consequence your MC specified, like a broken rib. Then you roll for damage and deal 1-6 damage to the thug. Depending on how many HP he had, maybe he's KOed, or maybe you need to swing again (and thus risk taking another punch). Picking a lock is supposed to work the same way. The lock has 4 or maybe 6 HP of locked-ness. You may a Lockpick roll to "hit" the lock, and then a Dexterity roll to see how much damage you do to it. If you only do 2 damage, then the lock has 2 HP left and so it's not open yet. The lock makes some kind of counterattack, probably threatening to have someone come by and catch you in the act or something. If you need multiple lockpick attacks to kill the lock, it will get multiple tries to inflict a wandering monster on you.

It turns out there's no special rule against repeat attacks. I was remembering a limitation of the teamwork system. Basically, during a mission, the players have to take turns. One PC can't make two actions in a row. One player at a time is "on point;" they get to take an action, with some special options available to involve the rest of the team, and then they must pass the baton to a new "on point" character, even if that's stupid. It's clear that the designers are aware this can be a problem, because they bring it up in one of the discussion questions for their example of play. (Yes, their long example of play ends with a set of questions for the reader; it's a shockingly brazen slap in the face. My reaction on reading them was, "Those are very good question. So good, in fact, it would have been really excellent if this game answered those questions. But if you want to outsource your design work to your paying customers, that's cool, I guess) Anyway, to summarize the scenario, there's a magic ward with 6 segments. The party Whisper uses her Attune skill to dispel them, and thanks to some teamwork, she rolls a 6-point effect, clearing the wards in one shot. Later, they point out that if she hadn't cleared the wards in one shot, someone else would be forced to take the next action, and ask you the reader how the group should handle it. Their suggestion? Find some way to kill time for an action so it can be her turn again and she can finish the job. Yes, really.

silva · Post by **silva** » Mon Apr 27, 2015 6:01 am

Orion wrote:Basically, during a mission, the players have to take turns. One PC can't make two actions in a row. One player at a time is "on point;" they get to take an action, with some special options available to involve the rest of the team, and then they must pass the baton to a new "on point" character, even if that's stupid

This was bugging me too, but I noticed something this exact moment: the "pointman" only pass the baton if the group makes an action. Otherwise, he can do as many actions as he wants.