Blades in the Dark

silva · Post by **silva** » Fri May 01, 2015 8:57 pm

No, its a Silva topic.

But feel free to stay out if you have nothing to contribute.

Zaranthan · Post by **Zaranthan** » Fri May 01, 2015 9:12 pm

EDIT: I'm out.

silva · Post by **silva** » Fri May 01, 2015 9:17 pm

1/10. Try harder.

RelentlessImp · Post by **RelentlessImp** » Fri May 01, 2015 9:42 pm

silva, I've finally figured out your problem. You're not stupid. You're just willfully ignorant. You refuse to accept any sort of argument that doesn't fit into your narrow little world-view even when those arguments are based upon logic and extrapolation. You are incapable of these feats, along with basic reading comprehension, and therefore are not worthy of responding to any longer. Should you overcome your ignorance and your refusal to engage with these strange and scary concepts of you being wrong when faced with reasoned arguments that have already met criteria you've laid out, feel free to actually attempt contribution. Until then, please just shut the fuck up.

Omegonthesane · Post by **Omegonthesane** » Fri May 01, 2015 10:21 pm

RelentlessImp wrote:silva, I've finally figured out your problem. You're not stupid. You're just willfully ignorant. You refuse to accept any sort of argument that doesn't fit into your narrow little world-view even when those arguments are based upon logic and extrapolation. You are incapable of these feats, along with basic reading comprehension, and therefore are not worthy of responding to any longer. Should you overcome your ignorance and your refusal to engage with these strange and scary concepts of you being wrong when faced with reasoned arguments that have already met criteria you've laid out, feel free to actually attempt contribution. Until then, please just shut the fuck up.

silva · Post by **silva** » Fri May 01, 2015 10:37 pm

Created a new topic for discussing Orion´s point about Apocalypse World here.

momothefiddler · Post by **momothefiddler** » Sat May 02, 2015 12:53 am

FrankTrollman wrote:The point is that Orion has not even implied that he is actually using Bear World at all. In any capacity. What he is saying is that Paternalistic Dictator Storytime Theater is a fun evening. At least when there is a benevolent dictator. Which is true, but has fuck-all to do with Bear World, because that piece of shit demands the paternalistic dictator to be a capricious dick. It doesn't suggest it, it demands it.

All Orion is really saying is that Bear World gives so much power to the MC that he can unilaterally ignore most of the rules and play benevolent dictator storytime theater and the players won't even know he's rewriting the game on the fly.

-Username17

Frank, you seem pretty fond of telling people they're not actually playing the game they seem to be playing.

Now, I don't disagree. In fact, in nearly all cases I've seen, you have to get pretty damn lenient with your definition of the game before people can really be said to be playing the game they claim to.

...Which is sort of my question. Even Dungeons and Dragons version 3.5, which seems to be the go-to game to reference around here (and with good reason) is not exactly playable as written, and even where it is, people still have a fuckton of changes that make it more fun/balanced/whatever.

Is your quibble, then, a matter of honesty? After all, if I play 3.5 with an experienced group, I have a pretty good chance of being told beforehand what rules I can expect to have changed and how, sometimes to the extent of written documents (e.g. Tomes), but if I play a game of Mage the Ascension, I pretty much just have to square my shoulders and set my jaw and hope my dots weren't completely wasted (spoiler: they always are).

Anyway, if that's your objection, I understand. If not, though, what is it? Other than that, how is people not playing AW more rage-inducing than people not playing D&D3.5?

tussock · Post by **tussock** » Sat May 02, 2015 5:58 am

#STFU
Hey, assholes, there's an ignore function, use it or, you know, STFU.

#Frank.
I think you'll find, Momo, that somebody is wrong on the internet. But it's not that people mink-caulk over shit rules all the time (everyone does to some extent, fun is pervasive), it's not that some games are all that much better than others (though they totally are much better), it's that if you want to talk about the rules of the game you have to actually talk about the rules.

There is fair things to be said about how some rules, no one uses them, that there's an obvious default houserule in play out there, but you can't use that as an excuse for existence of the actual rules. People not using the rules at all is added proof of their craptacularity, not a valid defence of them.

If you title your thread "how to fix bear world", that's good. If you title a thread "bear world is actually fine", that's bad. Even for the exact same discussion of bear-world rules kludges.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sat May 02, 2015 6:55 am

Momo wrote:Frank, you seem pretty fond of telling people they're not actually playing the game they seem to be playing.

Here's a concept we use here from time to time: The Oberoni Fallacy. It is that if you make the argument that Rule X is good because as the MC you can change it and doing something good instead of Rule X that you are in fact wrong. A rule that is only good if you change it into something good is, in its present form, bad. It is, at best, a waste of time and money as you read it and realize before putting it into the game that you'll have to make something up your own damn self. And if you accidentally played with it in its "not good yet" form, then it actively harmed your play experience.

Now the thing about discussions of Apocalypse World is that so far not one person has made any argument in favor of any part of that fucking game that wasn't just an Oberoni Fallacy. Except silva, because of course all of his arguments are basically written in Pokemon and have no structure or content. But everyone else either made the argument that Apocalypse World has good parts if you do not actually use the Apocalypse World book. Some of the people making this argument admitted to having not even read the fucking thing and were pulling their ideas of what Apocalypse World was and contained directly out of their own assholes.

Now take for example Orion's latest defense of the game. He said the class design was "good." Now, Apocalypse World's character classes take up a huge amount of space and have fiddly details all over them. But basically, each class has:

A starting equipment list.
A "special" in the middle of your god damn character sheet that triggers a super power during sex.
A list of "moves" you can get with advancements which are actually six "feat style" bonuses to various in-game actions (such as giving you an extra +1 if you accept MC railroading from reading a sitch or using one stat instead of another when seducing people) or sometimes just +1 to a whole stat. You know, whatever.
A list of advancements you can get with your precious XPs, including the class specific feats moves above.

So Orion is asking me to believe that it is not only good class design for a character to be able to choose advancement between "+1 to some Hard rolls" and "+1 to all Hard rolls, all the time," but he's also asking me to believe that it's acceptable class design for like a third of a character's starting shticks to be that they get a bonus to their next action every time the player describes fucking one of the other characters. That's so obviously not true, that I called Orion out that there is absolutely no fucking way he actually uses those classes in his home game.

No answer from him yet, but I'm still pretty sure Orion does not and has not used the actual Apocalypse World class design, making his defense of the game's class design an exercise in Oberoni Fallacy.

-Username17

momothefiddler · Post by **momothefiddler** » Sat May 02, 2015 7:17 am

So I was right - it's not the houserules that bother you, it's the claim that they don't exist?

I was gonna come up with an example from 3.5 to see if you agreed, but the first thing that came to mind was a monk amulet of turning into a tiger and yeah I guess you already get pretty cranky about people playing not-3.5 and using it to claim 3.5 is good too.

Orion · Post by **Orion** » Sat May 02, 2015 2:03 pm

Okay, on with the review. Today, I'm tackling the big example of play. The team wants to steal something called the Eye of Kotar from some witch coven called the Dimmer Sisters. They already know of a back way into their mansion from a canal, but they know it's protected by magical wards and there are guards inside. They declare an infiltration plan going in through the back door. The MC announces that there will be 6 points of wards, 4 points of patrols, and 6 points of locks. That seems like a lot of information for the players to have, even in the name of empowerment. They put their mage on point because they know the ward will be the first obstacle. They rock up to the service dock in back, and observe that there is an "open stone doorway shrouded in pitch blackness." "When [they] shine [their] lantern toward it, the darkness is not dispelled." I... I don't even know.

The mage declares that she's using her Attune skill to shut down the wards. After a discussion in which three people voice opinions, they decide this roll is risky AKA default. Incidentally, the three opinions are that this is risky, that it's risky, and that it's risky. Hopefully this is only for purposes of example, so they can explain the reasoning in detail. They are adamant in the rules section that the player should open the discussion by proposing what difficult they think it should be and the MC should wait and respond to that rather than calling the roll type in advance. They don't do that here. The mage player asks what difficulty to roll, the MC says risky, and for some reason a third player chimes in to agree with the MC. This inexplicable yes-men behavior will be a theme.

The mage player declares that she's going to overcome the wards. Another player chimes in to remind her it's her decision... after she's already made her decision. I don't even know. 4 of the 6 named players are female because this is a cool game for hep cats. She gets 2 dice for her maxed Attune, plus another die for background. Oh yeah, you pick a background that you're most familiar with (nobles, academics, workers, merchants, coppers, and crooks), and get +1 to everything against them. You can buy a second background later. I actually am very much in favor of this. They're all screwed if they fail, so their fighter ponies up for an assist die. Apparently he's her boyfriend anyway. He doesn't have any magic skills but that's okay because assists don't require skills. They decide that she's tapping his life force. Finally, someone suggests a devil's bargain: she leaves an astral signature like it was Shadowrun. She rolls 5 dice and gets a 6.

That means she can either succeed without endangering herself, or take a +1 to her effect roll. She knows that she needs to roll double 6s to whack the wards in one go, so she opts to tank the danger. The MC announces that the darkness swirls out and chokes her, and she's dead. She describes it as "the obvious thing." Anyway, the mage rolls her effect now. She has 2 dice for maxed willpower, plus one die for a masterwork focus. Neither the devil's bargain nor the assist carries over, so she rolls 3 dice. She gets another 6, and the bonus she carried over bumps that to double-6. That's 6 points, so the wards are gone.

Now she has to save vs. death, or she would, but the fighter jumps in to tank it. This is absolutely terrible strategy, because after the wards her character can probably sit out the rest of the mission, or maybe literally go home now. He, on the other hand, might be called on to fight the guards. Worse, he jumps in believing that he has to resist with his Willpower, which is his dump stat, whereas the mage has it maxed out. Then again, I guess there's nothing stopping another player can't soak all the damage from the guards, so YOLO. Fortunately, another player points out that this sounds like a physical attack, so he decides to roll Strength.* He has that maxed at 2 dice, and no other bonuses. He rolls a 3 and has to pay 4 stress. Add the 1 from assisting and he's burned 5 of 8 stress. On average he can only drink away 1.8 stress between jobs without spending coin, but he can spend 1-2 coin to bump that to a guaranteed 4. He only gets 2 coin per mission, so he's going to drink away his entire payout. I guess that's working as intended, because the characters are explicitly supposed to be self-destructive people unable to escape the cycle of crime.

*I'm not using the actual names for stats and skills. They're not bad and I'd use them in game, but for the review I'm going for familiar.

EDIT: TLDR RECAP

--Ward has 6 segments.
--Mage rolls 5 dice (skill+background+assist+bargain)
--Result: 6; Success with +1t damage; takes damage from obstacle
--Mage rolls 3 dice (stat+item)
--Result: 6; +1t -> double-6; 6 effect -> ward destroyed
--Teammate tanks the attack, rolls 2 dice (stat)
--Result: 3; pays 4 stress to avoid death

Observations

--They rolled almost the best possible dice*.
--Despite that, actually clearing the wards was lucky. If I did my math right that was a 22% chance. Admittedly, the save vs. death fail was only 25%, but in the typical case they'd be making that more than once. That feels pretty punishing.
--Until you remember stress is completely fungible between party members. They took 5 stress in the example, but it would be more like 7 in the typical case. There were 4 PC so they have a total of 32 stress between them. The run has another obstacle of the same tier, plus a substantially easier one. All told, I eyeball it as a likely 18 stress for the whole job assuming nothing is desperate or controlled. They should be able to chunk it into 4.5 per person, clear 1.8 for free, and then spend about 6 of their 8 coin to wipe the rest. They all get XP, the crew gets XP, and they also get a separate 1 to 4 coin for the guild bank on top of their individual shares.
--Thus, it looks like they may actually have math-hammered it so that it works if missions are short. Personally, 3 obstacles feels like not enough for a satisfying heist, but they force themselves into that with their difficulty setting. If they don't break the wards in one go, they might have had to use a setup action, which would bring it up to 7 or 8 rolls to disarm a trap*.
--Considering that these are likely to be one-man shows by the mage and thief, that's going to be a terribly play experience. Inexplicably, the most interesting obstacle --patrols -- is the easiest. This one would actually be wide open for anyone to contribute and to combo off each other in interesting ways, but instead it's the most likely to be one shotted.

*Okay, I forgot that this example didn't use any class features. That seems like a glaring omission, but w/evs. The mage maybe could have had a special for magic that would have prevented 2 stress. Everyone else could have an ability that gives a conditional +1 die, but none of them would have applied to this example.

*Actually, probably not because setups are for chumps. They'd be better off just paying the 1 stress to let the mage go twice.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sat May 02, 2015 5:17 pm

This review is basically just making me sad. Switching the Leverage over to a dicepool system seems like an overall pretty good idea. But of course, the "take elements at random from different ruleslite games and hammering them together in whatever order" method of game design isn't ever going to get anywhere.

The fact that the math doesn't appear to scale up to "every character has a scene to act on point with, plus one scene where everybody does stuff together" means that this is just a non-starter. I would say that the minimum adventure for a four person team is to have four obstacles that draw upon the unique talents of a single character plus one obstacle that is a group effort. That is the minimum for a heist adventure. And really, you'd like to push screen time a bit so you have a few obstacles that are handled by two characters in tandem.

Minor issues abound, like how locks and alarms don't impress as obstacles if you have to fight the patrols anyway. At the very least, characters should have the option of handling problems "soft" or "hard" and changing the characteristics of the obstacles therby. And if you're going to do Flashbacks as a thing, people should actually do it. Like, all the time. Perhaps with a legwork section that would allow you to switch unknown obstacles to known obstacles (for which you get to flashback in more specific equipment). But if you don't have enough resources to give screen time to all of the characters you've just plain fucking failed your craft RPG roll.

On the other hand, I've finally figured out the basic play mechanics of how I want to do Asymmetric Threat. Cyberpunk Fantasy Heartbreaker is to be goal oriented with flashbacks to how you prepared for each obstacle before or during the handling of said obstacle. This ties into the "caches" of equipment, meaning that you have access to types of gear and can flashback to having brought things that could plausibly be in caches you had access to.

But bottom line: the math has to work out to the players having enough resources to get through an adventure where everyone has face time. It's simply not acceptable for that to not be true.

-Username17

Orion · Post by **Orion** » Sun May 03, 2015 3:43 pm

I think the intent is for Trauma to happen. When you go past 8 stress, you tick a permanent trauma and re-set to 0 stress. Trauma can't be cured, and when you get to 4 your character retires, but until then it's actually beneficial -- you get a bonus to your drinking and whoring rolls based on your trauma level. EDIT: If one character takes a trauma every session, a 4-person group can go through 12 jobs before losing a character.

EDIT: Not sure what you're on about with locks and patrols. Nothing says they have to fight the patrols; I'm sure they have the option to go "soft" or "hard" there -- rolling Prowl or Mayhem as appropriate. Neither of the listed obstacles is an alarm; the ward is a death trap.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sun May 03, 2015 5:36 pm

Orion wrote:I think the intent is for Trauma to happen. When you go past 8 stress, you tick a permanent trauma and re-set to 0 stress. Trauma can't be cured, and when you get to 4 your character retires, but until then it's actually beneficial -- you get a bonus to your drinking and whoring rolls based on your trauma level. EDIT: If one character takes a trauma every session, a 4-person group can go through 12 jobs before losing a character.

That's terrible. I really mean that.

EDIT: Not sure what you're on about with locks and patrols. Nothing says they have to fight the patrols; I'm sure they have the option to go "soft" or "hard" there -- rolling Prowl or Mayhem as appropriate. Neither of the listed obstacles is an alarm; the ward is a death trap.

Locks really only make sense as an obstacle if fails get you in trouble with the patrols. If you have to deal with the patrols no matter what you do or don't do to the locks, you might as well take a crow bar to the window.

-Username17

silva · Post by **silva** » Sun May 03, 2015 9:43 pm

Orion wrote:I think the intent is for Trauma to happen. When you go past 8 stress, you tick a permanent trauma and re-set to 0 stress. Trauma can't be cured, and when you get to 4 your character retires, but until then it's actually beneficial -- you get a bonus to your drinking and whoring rolls based on your trauma level.

Thats my understanding too. The characters get stronger the near they are to the end. Even the Crew baheves like that: accrue enough Heat and you get Wanted. Get 4 levels in Wanted and youre busted. But the more Wanted levels you got, the more Renown your Crew gets, and this gives a big boost for them.

Do you prefer play it safe and keep the end at bay ? Or play it reckless and get more powerful, but run to the end faster ? Thats a question the group will have to answer both individually, and as a team for the crew.

OgreBattle · Post by **OgreBattle** » Mon May 04, 2015 3:26 am

FrankTrollman wrote: On the other hand, I've finally figured out the basic play mechanics of how I want to do Asymmetric Threat. Cyberpunk Fantasy Heartbreaker is to be goal oriented with flashbacks to how you prepared for each obstacle before or during the handling of said obstacle. This ties into the "caches" of equipment, meaning that you have access to types of gear and can flashback to having brought things that could plausibly be in caches you had access to.
-Username17

Do you see this only applying to equipment, or would "I was just using... 50% of my power!" style powerups and you now have more points in your combat skill also work.

TheFlatline · Post by **TheFlatline** » Mon May 04, 2015 6:56 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:
On the other hand, I've finally figured out the basic play mechanics of how I want to do Asymmetric Threat. Cyberpunk Fantasy Heartbreaker is to be goal oriented with flashbacks to how you prepared for each obstacle before or during the handling of said obstacle. This ties into the "caches" of equipment, meaning that you have access to types of gear and can flashback to having brought things that could plausibly be in caches you had access to.

Spycraft did this at least with feats in their "james bond" class (to explain how he could fucking do everything, including pilot submarines and shit, but forgot how to do it next movie/adventure). It actually kind of worked pretty well.

I want to say they did this with gear too, but not in a flashback sort of setting. But I could see a series of roleplaying scenes per problem that allow you to flashback and either gain the proper "soft" solution or have to go "hard". That's kind of a cool game concept.

silva · Post by **silva** » Thu May 14, 2015 10:49 pm

We played it a bit these two weekends. Some impressions:

1) Stress cumulates REALLY fast. Don't know if this is intended, but we had to be super cautious about it. Using the teamwork rules help to manage it a little better, but not as much as I thought.

2) I missed the kind of "downtime" action and intrigue of Apocalypse World. In Blades the Score and Downtime phases seem too clear cut, which may be good from a standpoint, but I wish the game could facilitate more the kind of personal and intra-party bickering that AW does. Right now it does zilch for it. Again, this may be the intended mode of play. If that's the case then nothing wrong here.

3) The game simply begs to be played by 3 players minimum. I tried to play it with one two and it didn't work well.

4) I liked the Flashback mechanics, but it felt too harsh on the stress, as the player must pay for stress twice (once for activating the Flashback, and again for resolving it). This should be adjusted.

Longes · Post by **Longes** » Thu May 14, 2015 11:06 pm

silva wrote:2) I missed the kind of "downtime" action and intrigue of Apocalypse World. In Blades the Score and Downtime phases seem too clear cut, which may be good from a standpoint, but I wish the game could facilitate more the kind of personal and intra-party bickering that AW does. Right now it does zilch for it. Again, this may be the intended mode of play. If that's the case then nothing wrong here.

To be fair, that's how heist movies work. There's no real reason for the thieves to sit in the den and be chummy with each other in between the heists. Think Ocean Eleven/Twelve/Thirteen. They do the job, and move on with their lives.

Gnorman · Post by **Gnorman** » Fri May 15, 2015 2:00 am

I don't know if anyone linked to this interview before, but my favorite part of it is the part where Harper all but admits to ripping off Dishonored.

I wish I could charge people $3,000 to have someone else design a class for me. But alas, I haven't written an "award-winning" game. I'll just leave this here for your perusal.

silva · Post by **silva** » Fri May 15, 2015 4:37 am

Nice find with the interview, Gnorman. Though, to be fair, he cites Thief as being the biggest inspiration.

Longes: Yeah, the lack of intra-party conflict seems intentional. I just think he may be missing a good opportunity here. Some heists shows actually have significant intra-team grudges, even if they tend to not disrupt the group activities. I for one find it a interesting thing, in small doses.

Gnorman · Post by **Gnorman** » Fri May 15, 2015 4:58 am

silva wrote:Nice find with the interview, Gnorman. Though, to be fair, he cites Thief as being the biggest inspiration.

The issue isn't WHAT he is inspired by; it's that he doesn't seem to understand the difference between "inspiration" and "copyright infringement."

TheFlatline · Post by **TheFlatline** » Fri May 15, 2015 5:12 pm

Gnorman wrote:
silva wrote:Nice find with the interview, Gnorman. Though, to be fair, he cites Thief as being the biggest inspiration.
The issue isn't WHAT he is inspired by; it's that he doesn't seem to understand the difference between "inspiration" and "copyright infringement."

It's funny that he picked the shittiest Thief of them all to be inspired by.

I mean, I'm a big Thief fan. The first novel I ever wrote used the opening fiction of the original Thief as a jumping off point as an homage/ripoff (and went completely off the rails after that but hey, I'm a shitty writer).

The new Thief kept me interested for all of about 30 minutes. I got it for free with my video card and still feel like I paid too much for it.

silva · Post by **silva** » Fri May 15, 2015 6:21 pm

I don't believe he had its first exposition to the series with the new Thief. By the looks of it, he seems an old time fan.

Also, ha anyone take a look at the last Assassin Creed ? I think its passed in Victorian London and looks pretty cool. Is the series considered good ? I always see it bashed when compared to other stealth games like Thiefs, Hitman, Splinter Cell, Metal Gear, Dishonored, etc.

Longes · Post by **Longes** » Fri May 15, 2015 6:33 pm

silva wrote:I don't believe he had its first exposition to the series with the new Thief. By the looks of it, he seems an old time fan.

Also, ha anyone take a look at the last Assassin Creed ? I think its passed in Victorian London and looks pretty cool. Is the series considered good ? I always see it bashed when compared to other stealth games like Thiefs, Hitman, Splinter Cell, Metal Gear, Dishonored, etc.

Assassin's Creed is not a stealth game, and comparing it to Thief, Dishonored or Hitman is impossible.