|
Dumb question: Are all new claims supposed to already belong to another faction, or can the crew start something from scratch without pissing off other factions? E: To clarify, can you gain a claim with a score that doesn't target another faction? Freudian slippers fucked around with this message at 08:54 on Apr 27, 2020 |
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 08:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 15:50 |
|
|
Freudian slippers posted:Dumb question: Are all new claims supposed to already belong to another faction, or can the crew start something from scratch without pissing off other factions? Rules as written, I believe all claims are already owned by somebody, so you're going to have to step on some toes to expand. If you/your players chafe at that, you could try seeing if any nearby factions that were rivals of the target would give +Relations as a mission reward to offset the relationship hit with the targeted gang.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 09:05
|
|
|
Or make them do lovely jobs for someone in the hopes they eventually gift them some turf.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 09:11
|
|
|
Thanks. I guess I worded myself a bit poorly. It's not so much that I worry about the relationship modifier, it's that players sometimes come up with something really creative and it cheapens it a bit to say that someone else already thought of it and now you have to steal it from them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 10:20
|
|
|
It's part of the setting assumptions that Duskwall is old and crowded and all of it has already been carved out into faction territories (where faction might mean a bunch of criminals or the police or a trading company). There's no space inside the walls for the crew to start a completely new claim - even if they have a brand new idea no one else has had, you still need territory and manpower to turn that idea into a claim. On a mechanical level, the score requirement is there so that there's an actual action that players need to do in order to get a claim. The rulebook is also clear that the claim map on the crew sheet is just typical of what sort of claims that crew type would naturally go for - you can feel free to replace any of the claims on the map with something else that's more appropriate. Keep in mind that if they have a cool idea, they could also start a long-term project to monetise that cool idea. Technically this would only be a one-off, but I'd definitely say that a good idea and a hard long-term project should be able to convert an existing claim into an appropriate, different claim type. Remember that fiction always comes first, so do whatever makes sense for the narrative, as long as the PCs have to pay a cost of some kind to get that claim (whether it's a score and reputation loss, a lot of coin and downtime actions, or something else).
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 11:05
|
|
|
Yeah, that makes sense. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 13:30
|
|
|
I might be running a game of Blades soon. I've read the book fairly well and I've heard two seasons of the podcast Friends at the Table that used Blades and then Scum and Villainy. I have some experience GMing Powered by the Apocalypse games so I think I can get into the kind of fiction-first, conversation-y mode of GMing pretty well. Listening to those podcasts however I got the sense that Blades is a little bit brutal for my tastes. I don't love, for example, that someone with a really good action rating could so easily get a mixed success given that Blade's mixed success are often really gnarly. To this end I was considering importing Scum and Villainy's gambit system and was hoping someone more experienced here could answer a couple of questions about that for me. First off - is this a stupid idea? Am I dumb for hacking Blades before ever having run it? Am I overestimating how "hard" the game is or, conversely, is that true but an important part of the experience? Second, if I did go through with adding a gambit pool, what else do you think I need to add? Scum and Villainy has a lot of moves, both for characters and for the starship (here the crew, I guess) that interface with the gambit system. Should I just have those be options to anyone who wants to take them? Complicating things, Scum and Villainy has a lot of those gambit moves going to the playbook "The Scoundrel" whose whole deal is kinda being a lucky fool. Should I just offer that as a Blades playbook? Cannibalize it's moves to anyone who wants luck to be a part of their character? Just add a basic gambit pool and not have any of the options to expand them? I appreciate any opinions!
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 19:36
|
|
|
My opinion on the FatT Blades game was that Austin went in loving hard whenever someone had consequences to suffer; your personal judgement on how much risk is in a roll and how much resistance deals with it matters a lot!
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 19:41
|
|
|
Blades PCs are durable as hell. If the MC moderates their punches, they'll have little trouble rebounding.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 19:44
|
|
|
You don't need to slap in all the consequences you can think of, from what I remember of listening to FATT it seemed like Austin often just went through all the possible options for consequences and chose to deploy each one. It's also fine to let resistance remove the consequence entirely instead of just lowering it slightly, if you want to lighten the experience further.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 19:44
|
|
|
It definitely can be a brutal game, but as long as you only roll dice when it really, really , matters it helps. I think the stakes of every dice roll being meaningful are what really elevate the experience. Definitely don't be afraid to make resisting things totally ignore the consequences when appropriate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 20:05
|
|
|
Austin Walker said that he messed up some rules running Blades for Marielda and it caused it to be a lot more brutal than the game normally is (but ironically really in line with that period of FatT) so I wouldn't worry overmuch about going too hard unless you actively decide to really go hard.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 20:24
|
|
|
Digital Osmosis posted:I might be running a game of Blades soon. I've read the book fairly well and I've heard two seasons of the podcast Friends at the Table that used Blades and then Scum and Villainy. I have some experience GMing Powered by the Apocalypse games so I think I can get into the kind of fiction-first, conversation-y mode of GMing pretty well. The gambit system is, in fact, in the example hacks for blades in the dark in the back of the book so it's definitely not ridiculous, and it'll be fine just dropping it in. Blades isn't actually as brutal as some of those podcasts- like others said, Austin went in particularly hard in that blades game because they were going Fast and Loose and doing a mini season. Plus, they were working with old rules.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 20:25
|
|
|
tokenbrownguy posted:Blades PCs are durable as hell. If the MC moderates their punches, they'll have little trouble rebounding. There's "moderating the punches" and there's the Marielda thing where failed rolls lead to total collapse of everything all the time, to be fair. I love Marielda but Austin went in hard.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 20:26
|
|
|
Yeah, the results from mixed successes give you a pretty big range of how harsh you want to be. Obviously, you want to maintain some level of overall consistency in tone, but a risky failure can be anything from harm to narratively blocking off whatever they were trying to do. Being clear on what 'risky' means for actions can be helpful for this too. Being equally matched in a knife fight and trying to surreptitiously pick a lock can both be risky positioning, but the consequences for a mixed/failure can be pretty different without feeling capricious.tokenbrownguy posted:Blades PCs are durable as hell. If the MC moderates their punches, they'll have little trouble rebounding. this is also really true, and its why blades makes it so hard to no-strings succeed. the players can take a lot of punishment and still roundly succeed. every score should feel like theyre driving a car that only goes faster, imo
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 23:24
|
|
|
I really want to gm this, but I'm really afraid of just not being able to find satisfactory consequences for successes and failures.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 00:00
|
|
|
Here's the secret pro tip: there are 3-4 other people sat around the table with brains full of ideas you can use.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 00:02
|
|
|
The old "What do you do?" adage can also be helpful to think about when doing roll results, in that even if they succeed they should succeed in a way that forces them to make a decision. Even full successes can have you introduce possible threats, it just means that the PCs are way ahead of the curve on it, but it doesn't mean that those don't still exist. Failures are trickier, but in the worst case scenario, you can always introduce and tick a new, terrifying clock.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 00:24
|
|
|
Not strictly necessary, but if anyone remembers where Austin talked about using the Blades rules incorrectly I'd like to see that first-hand. Either way I think I might have been worrying too much based on the one actual play I'd heard and the fairly intense downtime system, which scans to me like you're lucky to get back to normal, let alone prep for the next heist. But again, if I'm GMing, I can be a little chiller with all of those consequences and end up giving them less to recover from during downtime. And also we might end up playing The Sprawl anyway (I swear I didn't just give them a list of Friends at the Table games, they really did just narrow it down to those two systems.) A great way to come up with consequences is to just temporarily take away an advantage the players have. Knocking a piece of equipment out of their hand is a classic but there's plenty of times you can make it so their advantages or best action-rating isn't really going to work (or will work with limited / no effect.) There's also the more game-y elements in Blades, like you can add some heat, tick a clock, or introduce a totally new clock that you're not telling the players what it's for until it get's halfway full (because  you haven't figured out what it is yet .) Threatening NPCs they like is also always fun!Iceclaw, have you ran any of the other games, like Powered by the Apocalypse systems, where "success with a consequence" is an common part of the play? It does take a little to warm up to but once you start thinking of the fictional elements in play (playing fiction-first, basically) you tend to have a running bank of elements you can use to complicate things when needed. It get's easier after the first session or two.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 07:03
|
|
|
Thanks for all the tips guys. The last Band of Blades session went a lot smoother I think. With a lot more people able to act. At some point I did mess up and make the squad roll again for the same thing (essentially to escape the bad guys). I realized afterwards that escape should have just been a small 4 point clock so that it was more obvious their first roll wasn't going to take them out without extreme effect. Either way it's all coming together a bit better. What's been holding the Legion back at this point has been secondary mission failures. The last 2 secondary missions they've stacked as many engagement dice as they can and ended up getting 3 for each. Both resulted in complete failures with major harm and 3 casualties each. Along with mission failure penalties it's been a pretty bad setback for them. With time and pressure mounting they've essentially been forced to advance every single campaign turn in order to keep up. I don't think they're in a loss state yet, but the advancement rolls need to be good. It kind of sucks that at the end of the day your campaign could essentially be lost due to poor luck, but that's just how the game works I suppose. I don't think it's expected that you'll fail so many secondaries when you're spending so many resources to ensure that they succeed, but worst of all I can tell it's demoralizing to the players.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2020 14:14
|
|
|
So it looks like my game of Blades might actually happen, appreciate the advice on pulling punches (at least compared to how Austin ran it in Friends at the Table.) I'll be reading this thread more thoroughly for general advice, but I had two specific questions. One is - is there an online resource for the setting "lore?" I understand the setting is sketched out instead of described in detail to give the group room to create and improvise but there's some stuff I'd like more detail on, or am not sure if I understand the implications of entirely. Like, the seas have turned black - but do people still sail on what is basically water, or are things weirder? It sounds like you need a oxygen tank to survive in the Deathlands, but I'm unclear if that's because the air is poisonous, there is no air, something else? If these are as clear as they're going to be (until they come up in the game, of course) fine but I know there's like, a short game set on the trains running across the Deathlands and I'm wondering if there's more setting information out there. Also, any suggestions / easy starter packs for running the game online? I've not run a game online before. I know a lot of people use Roll20, and I figure I should probably download that and start to figure it out - is that a good idea or is there another app people prefer? Do any of them have like, Blades in the Dark plugins that will get me easily up to speed? Thanks for all the advice.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 17:27
|
|
|
Digital Osmosis posted:If these are as clear as they're going to be (until they come up in the game, of course) fine They are. The only thing set in stone is the fact that everything outside of the lightning barriers is intrinsically hostile to life, and that's why everyone has to crowd into Duskwall. The exact specifics of that are up to you to define (or not, if they never come up). As a side note, make sure your players actually learn the BitD setting. The game mechanics are simple and narrative-first, so things will very rapidly fall apart if your players aren't able to describe their actions with some detail that fits the setting. Digital Osmosis posted:Also, any suggestions / easy starter packs for running the game online? I've not run a game online before. I know a lot of people use Roll20, and I figure I should probably download that and start to figure it out - is that a good idea or is there another app people prefer? Do any of them have like, Blades in the Dark plugins that will get me easily up to speed? Roll20 has a nice BitD character sheet with really fancy graphics, programmed macros and click-to-roll buttons, and the virtual tabletop is nice for putting up maps of the city that everyone can look at. It also has voice chat, though I prefer using Discord just because the quality is nicer and you get push to talk.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 18:48
|
|
|
Seconding the roll20 BitD character sheets, but unless they've significantly updated the virtual tabletop thing, it's complete garbage to draw on; basically only good enough for pre-drawn maps or pictures and tokens. I usually have the sheets etc in roll20 and then I scribble maps and other notes in Krita, which I share to the players live over Discord. Gets me much closer to the way I ran stuff in person with just some blank paper to free-hand explanations on.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 10:19
|
|
|
Digital Osmosis posted:One is - is there an online resource for the setting "lore?" Just look at a wiki about Dishonored.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 23:21
|
|
|
Lord_Hambrose posted:Just look at a wiki about Dishonored. This doesn't really work because as much as Duskwall blatantly borrows from Dunwall for the leviathan oil stuff (and obviously the name), the BitD setting also has weird gothic horror assumptions that aren't in Dishonored.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 23:51
|
|
|
It's Doskvol, not Duskwall.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 00:42
|
|
|
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, but just in case you aren't: 
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 09:07
|
|
|
Lemon-Lime posted:I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, but just in case you aren't: Which is why it's Doskvol, imperialist running dog. 
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 10:44
|
|
|
JohnLovely posted:this basically matches my groups' response too. never seen this degree of roleplaying from someone that rules-addicted before two sessions later another, ordinarily rp oriented player was debating which special ability to get and the munchkin player went "oh my god, just take what sounds like it's gonna be more fun to roleplay, that's the way to be effective in this game" and I nearly shed a tear.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 14:50
|
|
|
I've got a question for those who've ran Band of Blades. Does the quartermaster need to explicitly spend a campaign action to "start" a long term project, or can he start them for free as long as he has idle laborers or alchemists handy? It's not super clear in the book since it mentions that laborers and alchemists are checked to make progress on a project for free, but only after the campaign actions step I think
DarkAvenger211 fucked around with this message at 22:26 on May 4, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 21:26
|
|
|
They happen during the campaign actions, not after: Per the labourers/alchemists rules on page 139: With labourers, starting an LTP uses an action as normal, but the clock will auto-progress by 1 every campaign phase per labourer unit assigned to the project, as long as it's for a LTP they can help on (I would rule this includes the phase in which the LTP is started, but the rulebook doesn't say either way). With alchemists, performing an alchemist action (which can be either starting/progressing an LTP or performing an Acquire Asset action, GM's choice) is in addition to your campaign actions, since alchemists have to roll for Corruption. It's entirely possible for labourers to be assigned to and therefore progress an alchemical LTP if it makes sense in the fiction (i.e. the alchemists are researching a cure, but they need to build a workshop first; you'd have to justify this every new campaign phase to keep doing it). Lemon-Lime fucked around with this message at 22:42 on May 4, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 22:39
|
|
|
Lemon-Lime posted:They happen during the campaign actions, not after: Ah ok, that makes more sense. Alchemists can start and continue projects without an action, labourers can be used towards filling clocks that make sense for them.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2020 01:34
|
|
|
How about level 3 harm? It mentions in the book that level 3 harm effectively means you can't do anything without help, does this mean someone else needs to be carrying this person? Or they aren't able to perform any actions without another character helping them? And in that case, does that mean helping them narratively? Or mechanically with the assist action? The last mission we ran we had someone start with level 3 harm from a previous mission. I wasn't exactly sure how to treat it exactly, could a rookie npc in the squad be used to "help" the entire mission? The other harm levels are explicit in saying you have less effect or less dice, I'm just not sure what exactly the intention behind level 3 harm is supposed to be mechanically.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2020 14:02
|
|
|
Death's door basically. I honestly would rule against allowing them to go on a mission, unless it was absolutely vital. And yeah you're right it is an assist (or a push) required before they can roll anything and narratively they need to be helped to walk.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2020 16:25
|
|
|
It's a narrative "help" but because this is fiction first, that will nearly always translate into an Assist roll if the player with level 3 harm is trying to act (unless they push themselves). This is of course assuming they can act in the first place; if your PC has "catatonic curse" as level 3 harm, they're unlikely to be attempting any actions. Why was a character with level 3 harm going on a mission?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2020 16:48
|
|
|
Lemon-Lime posted:It's a narrative "help" but because this is fiction first, that will nearly always translate into an Assist roll if the player with level 3 harm is trying to act (unless they push themselves). This is of course assuming they can act in the first place; if your PC has "catatonic curse" as level 3 harm, they're unlikely to be attempting any actions. Mostly because he was the only other required specialist for the primary, since the others were also very injured or required for the secondary. It didn't help them with the engagement roll anyway since they rolled a desperate situation so at that point that character would really be a liability. They were an officer so a lot of the rolls were to marshal the squad itself (which again, seems a little strange that you could do that with physical help), but ultimately they weren't put in much danger themselves. This next session will be a little interesting then. There's a couple specialists with level 3 harm from last secondary mission failure, and they might be needed depending on which missions they pick. If a medic comes along, they can technically use their Doctor ability to allow them to ignore their injury right? But if no medic comes along maybe it would seem right to just not allow it. In my head a level 3 injury kind of means being carried out on a stretcher which really doesn't mesh well with them joining a squad for a mission.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2020 18:10
|
|
|
At level 3 harm, they're effectively a casualty that shouldn't be available to be sent out on mission. Think of it from a narrative perspective: you wouldn't send a person so injured they can't do anything without being propped up by someone else on a cross-country trek where they're almost certainly going to be attacked by undead. There might be a tiny handful of exceptions for cinematic license purposes, but in 99.99% of cases that soldier would just not be fit for duty in any way. Lemon-Lime fucked around with this message at 19:26 on May 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2020 19:22
|
|
|
A soldier immobilised in a full-body cast that is just carried up to whatever their speciality is, then carried away
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 08:30
|
|
|
Ichabod Sexbeast posted:A soldier immobilised in a full-body cast that is just carried up to whatever their speciality is, then carried away This sounds pretty funny, but I kid you not that's basically what was being argued at the (virtual) table. I mean everyone seemed to be all for it so it mostly comes down on me to say no, which kind of feels unfair to them if this is the kind of game they want to play. It's not like we talked in detail about this before the game started since we're all kind of learning as we go. So I made a compromise and decided it's only possible because they brought along a medic who could Doctor away the injury for a scene when they needed the injured character to do something, and that the injured character could still assist other people if it made sense since he would be spending stress to do so anyway Our group is very much used to D&D with more hard/defined rules, this game is very narrative focused so a lot of it is up to interpretation. Rules as written it doesn't technically say you can't take level 3 harmed characters out on missions, so it's kind of up to me as the GM to arbitrate that. Using the examples you all give me is real helpful, I really appreciate it. DarkAvenger211 fucked around with this message at 21:18 on May 6, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 20:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 15:50 |
|
|
DarkAvenger211 posted:This sounds pretty funny, but I kid you not that's basically what was being argued at the (virtual) table. I have a friend who ran his company from a hospital bed, with people bringing him things to sign and review, after a pretty brutal car accident. People get pushed around in wheelchairs to do things all the time. Then you have Chewie carrying around a disassembled C3PO in ESB, and being alerted to...I forget what, but there was something like that right? Lots of adventure stories have “you basically have to carry this frail expert through the dangerous terrain so they can do their trick at the place” as a plot element, so I’d probably let them go for it. The ballast character had better be really good at their thing for it to be worthwhile, though, because most of the time the party is down the invalid plus whoever is schlepping them around, which is worse than just leaving the sack of meat back at camp. You’ve got a pretty good shot at a “save yourself!” scene, which is always a nice development opportunity.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2020 21:27
|
|
